Do we define our conscience...

[WendyDarling]

one of the most important things to do in philosophy is to understand what a distinction is in and of itself. how distinctions work. they are basically the underlying shit of pretty much 100% of the stuff people call philosophy. pro tip...the 2 things on opposite sides of a distinction are almost never actually completely distinct from each other. like almost nothing is purely subjective or purely objective. almost nothing is purely innate or learned, almost nothing is purely good or evil. reality is so much more complicated than picking a side. plato has form and content. spinoza had substance and attribute, they have basically just been re-labeling shit in philosophy for like the last 1000 years or something.

Shades of grey, got it. What are absolutes, you said almost nothing is pure so what is the something that is pure?

[Mr Reasonable]

one of the most important things to do in philosophy is to understand what a distinction is in and of itself. how distinctions work. they are basically the underlying shit of pretty much 100% of the stuff people call philosophy. pro tip...the 2 things on opposite sides of a distinction are almost never actually completely distinct from each other. like almost nothing is purely subjective or purely objective. almost nothing is purely innate or learned, almost nothing is purely good or evil. reality is so much more complicated than picking a side. plato has form and content. spinoza had substance and attribute, they have basically just been re-labeling shit in philosophy for like the last 1000 years or something.

Shades of grey, got it. What are absolutes, you said almost nothing is pure so what is the something that is pure?

abstractions. like the "thing" that underlies the concept of x=x. identity. no matter how identical 2 things are they cant share all properties since the cannot share the property of location in space. so the concept, or the form is pure but the application of it washes over or does not account for the grey area that will underlie its application. functional descriptions that accurately account for things that are happening can be pure, as in, true no matter what. like the idea that your ability to sense things is finite and that therefore perception to the extent that it is limited shapes the information that is filtered through it.

[WendyDarling]

Eventually, I’d like a thread on perception.

[Mr Reasonable]

i worked for a lady who was a phd chemist for a long time in the 70s and 80s who then picked up a phl phd and did a dissertation on perception. her dad was a bausch and lomb career guy so she grew up in a house talking about lenses. she did a masters in physics and a bs in biology or vice versa i cant remember. she was too smart for her own good sometimes.

the philosophical stuff about perception is pretty straightforward. the physics of it is too much. they want to quantify everything. i just want to know why youre quantifying everything and what doing so does. there isnt a whole lot of stuff to debate in philosophy of this kind as long as you stay away from the people who want to move the conversation from philosophy to sociology or psychology. i dont think those 2 disciplines are very interesting or that they rest on long-term, super durable foundations. they are fad sciences and in some ways anti-philosophical at times.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Though I promise I’ll join you in opening that can eventually.

“You can learn from that experience in a number of ways” via the conscience? I’ve regarded conscience similarly to the way you do rather than as self esteem which seems a shallow or superficial motive when compared to the depth of a consequence brought about by a poor decision, the magnitude of fallout which may be why I am struggling with accepting self esteem as the basis of the conscience.

I can imagine arguing that self-esteem is the root. We want to feel good about ourselves so if we notice that what we did goes against our own morals, then we can't manage to have high self-esteem. I don't think that's the best way to look at the issue. Self-esteem, guilt, shame, and generally conscience all presume having an internal judge weighing in on us as a totality. I think that's a problematic structure. Some little part of us given the power to judge the whole of us 'objectively' and as an object.

Bring on the argument, please.

OK, well I think some people use self-esteem (perhaps without that word) as their conscience. They cheat on their spouse. Feel bad afterwards. Part of why they felt good about themselves before they cheated was that they were a good, honest person. 'Good' including being a good spouse who is faithful. That was part of why they felt good about themselves. It was part of their identity. I'm an honest guy. I don't cheat. I wouldn't do things that would hurt my wife and they walk around 'having good self-esteem.' When they cheat, their conscience starts bugging them (it could also happen that they consider cheating or start flirting with another person and the conscience kicks in.) It's like a warning signal: you ain't gonna be able to feel so good about yourself, warning, warning. Or, now I don't have this go to criterion to feel good about myself, since I cheated.

I can see that argument. I think it's not a great way to manage a self, but I also think is it common, though an oversimplified version of how people end up feeling guilt and shame.

[WendyDarling]

What does the rapping, invokes the signaling for the conscience? Failure? Fear? Is that an a priori understanding? Where’s the reward feature to self esteem? If self esteem is fragile to begin with, why would people test its boundaries, to in effect get away with as much as they could? How would trying to cheat a built in house alarm improve your self esteem?

What would be a better way to manage yourself?

What is it called when you feel other peoples guilt though you did nothing wrong?

Sorry about asking a lot of questions, I’m really tired but a wind storm is keeping me awake.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What does the rapping, invokes the signaling for the conscience? Failure? Fear? Is that an a priori understanding? Where’s the reward feature to self esteem? If self esteem is fragile to begin with, why would people test its boundaries, to in effect get away with as much as they could? How would trying to cheat a built in house alarm improve your self esteem?

I respond to the last. It wouldn't, certainly not in the short term. The model presumes (and I think unnecessarily makes permanent) a split in the self. There's the conscience that determines if an act or considered act is or would be good or bad. There's the beast in us or desires or urges that just want stuff. The conscience or judge or jailer keeps the other part at bay and sometimes fails to. Or often does. I think self-esteem is a poor approach to the self. Or, in any case, it's not mine. But I do think people function like this. I am not sure what you mean in the beginning, but if you are wondering how the conscience punishes, yes through fear, through the taking away of feeling good about yourself - guilt for example is unpleasant. Regret is also unpleasant but it does not entail splits in the self. The reward is you have a story that you are a good person. It can be comparative. You are not like the sinners. You are not like dad was. It's like a little ongoing diploma or gold star from teacher. But you are both teacher and student.

[WendyDarling]

Satyr wrote

Have you heard of the Ice Man?
There are humans with no conscience...last I heard they could be as many as 10% of the population.
There's no telling what mutations have been preserved and propagated with sheltering.

I once watched a documentary of a lioness that started killing a pride's cubs...just because.
the other lionesses drove her off...whatever mutation cause her insanity was exterminated....but human systems protect and shelter all kinds of mutations.
See what is happening on the streets of America.

Is their conscience non-existent or do they defy it at every turn being internally masochistic while outwardly sadistic?

I'll look into the Ice Man.

Watch his interviews...
Conscience develops....it begins, as I said, with a primal genetic recognition of how one belongs or can belong or be excluded....then it refines itself....with these sociopaths, as they used to call them, this development is warped by some trauma ...for instance this Ice Man had an abusive father, so his conscience did not develop as it would in a child brought up by Abrahamic ideals within a stable family.

I watched different interviews with ‘The Ice Man.’ One interviewer said that Ice Man had a genetic predisposition which manifested as anti social behavior as well as paranoid disorder along with modeled abuse from both parents and others, he was the trifecta of f’d up where hate was his go to source of energy rather than love. He was not a serial killer since he lacked an outward pattern or obsession. Since I’m an optimist, I believe that he had a conscience based on a few things he said. I may further investigate his childhood.