Determinism

[encode_decode]

@Sculptor

@Aventador

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.
The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.
What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

I personally like the considerations that both you and Aventador make. Other than these considerations we are still left with a really effing complex system to deal with and that is humanity…

…in all its different forms…and some people are already happy with their way.

[phyllo]

It’s not just about “evil”. The system eliminates carelessness.

You won’t even want to fiddle with the car radio while driving. (That might distract you and cause an accident. You can’t bear the thought that you might harm someone.)

I mean really.

[Sculptor]

@encode_decode

@Sculptor

@Aventador

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.
The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.
What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

I personally like the considerations that both you and Aventador make. Other than these considerations we are still left with a really effing complex system to deal with and that is humanity…

…in all its different forms…and some people are already happy with their way.

I think there are few basic things we could all get right. Most of the ones I would recommend would just be damned by many as evil as thay are “socialism”. Simple things like a right to education, an even chance at life. Trying to be content with what you have, and to consider helping another who might appreciate that help.
I see none of these things out there in the political world that are not daily attacked by the rich and powerful and condemned as weak minded communism.
They are criticised even by people who have benefitted greatly by what they love to insult as “socialism”, even with the words they type, educated by the system that taught them to know how!

[peacegirl]

@Aventador

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery
tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Sculptor: There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.

Peacegirl:This is the antithesis of tyrrany. This jumping to conclusions is the downfall of this thread

Sculptor: The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.

What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

Peacegirl: Dog food is good next to starvation and bad for a king. But if everyone can have steak, would you complain? Evil in this context means striking a first blow of hurt that steps on someone else’s freedom. Everyone having steak is hurting no one. Let’s not get off track.

Sculptor: There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

Peacegirl: That is because you don’t see that this world is within reach. Please don’t use your doubts as a reason to scrap this knowledge even if you’re skeptical. This is for your benefit as there is wisdom in these words.

Sculptor: I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

I personally like the considerations that both you and Aventador make. Other than these considerations we are still left with a really effing complex system to deal with and that is humanity…

…in all its different forms…and some people are already happy with their way.
[/quote]
Peacegirl: Imagine everyone being happy with their lot in life because they are able to fulfill all of their desires with no one standing in their way (AND WITHOUT HURTING ANYONE IN THE PROCESS). Where is the complaint? How can they object to such a world?

[iambiguous]

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

…as we’ve seen, Hume argued that causal necessity is a relation that a mind comes up with based on the constant effects it perceives; but the mind is never capable of perceiving the actual cause. For instance, if I see one ball moved by another ball, what I experience is a ball in different positions. I infer that the movement of one ball was caused by the other one hitting it, but in reality I never perceive the actual power or cause – how one ball caused the other to move.

On the other hand, come on, in regard to material interactions in the either/or world it seems considerably more possible that there may well be a first cause. Call it God, call it nature. And in regard to why the balls do what they do in a game of billiards, science has been able to pin that down with an extraordinary degree of accuracy.

This sheds a light for us on the idea that Hume’s idea of determinism was different from either ‘standard’ determinism or Spinoza’s variety, which both relate everything back to the first cause. In Hume, we do not see any such long causality; rather, we see what we might call ‘potential’ causes for certain effects.

The potential to be right, the potential to be wrong. The part that the objectivists here refuse to accept. And the fact that there have been countless renditions of this first cause down through the ages, never seems to stop yet more from insisting that it is their own. Let alone own up to the obvious: that they have no capacity to actually demonstrate the existence of this first cause much beyond the assumptions they accumulate about it in their heads.

Or has one of them here accomplished this in a post that I missed. A link to it please.

One distinguishing aspect of Hume’s determinism, is that he never claims that any effect we observe today is the manifestation of a determination set by a remote first cause. The power of causation rather lies hidden in the various things that are in cause and effect relationships. In a sense, Hume tells us what we already experience in our daily lives: that, for instance, if you see smoke around, you know that something’s burning, even if you are not able to directly see the actual thing burning. So what he seems to mean by determinism is that if something happens, something else is bound to happen.

That’s always been my contention. We are able to note what we construe to be events/interactions either correlated or intertwined in a cause and effect relationship. But all we have at our disposal in explaining them is the information that we have accumulated. On the other hand, what of all the information that we have not collected that is pertinent as well in explaining it…fully?

And, in fact, how is our understanding of free will itself not embedded in what may well be one of the biggest mysteries of all?

[peacegirl]

@phyllo

It’s not just about “evil”. The system eliminates carelessness.

You won’t even want to fiddle with the car radio while driving. (That might distract you and cause an accident. You can’t bear the thought that you might harm someone.)

I mean really.

An accident can still happen but it will be a rare occurrence when reckless or careless driving is taken out of the equation. Who would desire to drive recklessly knowing that if someone should die as a result —- and loved ones are crying in pain —- they would KNOW (in advance) they will not be blamed. This would be a horrible position to be in when there is no price to pay, which causes a drastic change in behavior.

[obsrvr524]

From 8 pages back - before the latest ad hom hurricane -

@obsrvr524

@peacegirl

Obsrvr: But there are two very significant other problems in getting people to be more responsible -

• People are actually NOT smart enough - even after learning about determinism
• There are very very powerful people who WANT people to not be smart and do all kinds of nasty things to ensure they don’t become smart.

Peacegirl: That is true but you are basing your judgement coming from a free will environment. You need to keep an open mind to see how using these principles will change human conduct for the better.

Two questions -

• What kind of environment are we needing in order to make this work?
• Since we always have to start from where we are - how do we get to that environment?

[Aventador]

Aventador: Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: But you are not talking about offering people ways. You are talking about making sure only the conditions that lead to that perception of a better way exist, and that ‘making sure’ is known also as imposing.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: So I understand you correctly that evil is synonymous with causing hurt.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: It seems what we are talking about here is imposing a set of conditions, given which people will continue to choose options that they think will help their lives as they did before. So there is an imposition, the imposition of conditions.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: When you say extended, the extension itself requires implementation. So far, by your descriptions, by the imposition of conditions. It seems to me the question still remains whether imposition is harm, and whether that invalidates your hypothesis.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: How can these implementations occur without them being caused to occur? Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Aventador: What if the imposition of these conditions is something people don’t want done to themselves? Is this not a form of dictatorship constituting culture? What is this necessity you mention, what are these dynamics and how does it come to express itself in space time?

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

…as we’ve seen, Hume argued that causal necessity is a relation that a mind comes up with based on the constant effects it perceives; but the mind is never capable of perceiving the actual cause. For instance, if I see one ball moved by another ball, what I experience is a ball in different positions. I infer that the movement of one ball was caused by the other one hitting it, but in reality I never perceive the actual power or cause – how one ball caused the other to move.

On the other hand, come on, in regard to material interactions in the either/or world it seems considerably more possible that there may well be a first cause. Call it God, call it nature. And in regard to why the balls do what they do in a game of billiards, science has been able to pin that down with an extraordinary degree of accuracy.

This sheds a light for us on the idea that Hume’s idea of determinism was different from either ‘standard’ determinism or Spinoza’s variety, which both relate everything back to the first cause. In Hume, we do not see any such long causality; rather, we see what we might call ‘potential’ causes for certain effects.

The potential to be right, the potential to be wrong. The part that the objectivists here refuse to accept. And the fact that there have been countless renditions of this first cause down through the ages, never seems to stop yet more from insisting that it is their own. Let alone own up to the obvious: that they have no capacity to actually demonstrate the existence of this first cause much beyond the assumptions they accumulate about it in their heads.

Or has one of them here accomplished this in a post that I missed. A link to it please.

One distinguishing aspect of Hume’s determinism, is that he never claims that any effect we observe today is the manifestation of a determination set by a remote first cause. The power of causation rather lies hidden in the various things that are in cause and effect relationships. In a sense, Hume tells us what we already experience in our daily lives: that, for instance, if you see smoke around, you know that something’s burning, even if you are not able to directly see the actual thing burning. So what he seems to mean by determinism is that if something happens, something else is bound to happen.

That’s always been my contention. We are able to note what we construe to be events/interactions either correlated or intertwined in a cause and effect relationship. But all we have at our disposal in explaining them is the information that we have accumulated. On the other hand, what of all the information that we have not collected that is pertinent as well in explaining it…fully?

And, in fact, how is our understanding of free will itself not embedded in what may well be one of the biggest mysteries of all?

You are irrelevant.
There is no mystery here.
Just ask yourself; when you can do what ever you want? Where does the want come from? When you do exactly as you freely will, what motivates the will? When you make a choice, on what basis are you making that choice? When you apply your Dasein and project a possible future outcome to make a choice upon what are you basing that assessment?
When you honestly answer those questions, you will abandon radical free will and adpot the more reasonable and logical compatibilism. Heidegger is well ahead of you on this.

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

…as we’ve seen, Hume argued that causal necessity is a relation that a mind comes up with based on the constant effects it perceives; but the mind is never capable of perceiving the actual cause. For instance, if I see one ball moved by another ball, what I experience is a ball in different positions. I infer that the movement of one ball was caused by the other one hitting it, but in reality I never perceive the actual power or cause – how one ball caused the other to move.

On the other hand, come on, in regard to material interactions in the either/or world it seems considerably more possible that there may well be a first cause. Call it God, call it nature. And in regard to why the balls do what they do in a game of billiards, science has been able to pin that down with an extraordinary degree of accuracy.

This sheds a light for us on the idea that Hume’s idea of determinism was different from either ‘standard’ determinism or Spinoza’s variety, which both relate everything back to the first cause. In Hume, we do not see any such long causality; rather, we see what we might call ‘potential’ causes for certain effects.

The potential to be right, the potential to be wrong. The part that the objectivists here refuse to accept. And the fact that there have been countless renditions of this first cause down through the ages, never seems to stop yet more from insisting that it is their own. Let alone own up to the obvious: that they have no capacity to actually demonstrate the existence of this first cause much beyond the assumptions they accumulate about it in their heads.

Or has one of them here accomplished this in a post that I missed. A link to it please.

One distinguishing aspect of Hume’s determinism, is that he never claims that any effect we observe today is the manifestation of a determination set by a remote first cause. The power of causation rather lies hidden in the various things that are in cause and effect relationships. In a sense, Hume tells us what we already experience in our daily lives: that, for instance, if you see smoke around, you know that something’s burning, even if you are not able to directly see the actual thing burning. So what he seems to mean by determinism is that if something happens, something else is bound to happen.

That’s always been my contention. We are able to note what we construe to be events/interactions either correlated or intertwined in a cause and effect relationship. But all we have at our disposal in explaining them is the information that we have accumulated. On the other hand, what of all the information that we have not collected that is pertinent as well in explaining it…fully?

And, in fact, how is our understanding of free will itself not embedded in what may well be one of the biggest mysteries of all?

You are irrelevant.
There is no mystery here.
Just ask yourself; when you can do what ever you want? Where does the want come from? When you do exactly as you freely will, what motivates the will? When you make a choice, on what basis are you making that choice? When you apply your Dasein and project a possible future outcome to make a choice upon what are you basing that assessment?
When you honestly answer those questions, you will abandon radical free will and adopt the more reasonable and logical compatibilism. Heidegger is well ahead of you on this.

[peacegirl]

@Aventador

Aventador: Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: But you are not talking about offering people ways. You are talking about making sure only the conditions that lead to that perception of a better way exist, and that ‘making sure’ is known also as imposing.

Peacegirl: This is not about “making sure@ of anything. No imposition whatsoever.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: So I understand you correctly that evil is synonymous with causing hurt.

Peacegirl: In this context, yes. This was clarified in the book.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: It seems what we are talking about here is imposing a set of conditions, given which people will continue to choose options that they think will help their lives as they did before. So there is an imposition, the imposition of conditions.

Peacegirl: There is no imposition of conditions. Imposition does not enter into this. Just because people may see a better way of life based on these principles does not mean they are choosing out of an imposition.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: When you say extended, the extension itself requires implementation. So far, by your descriptions, by the imposition of conditions. It seems to me the question still remains whether imposition is harm, and whether that invalidates your hypothesis.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: How can these implementations occur without them being caused to occur?

Peacegirl: Free will does not exist therefore any implementation of these principles is in keeping with determinism, which only means choosing the only choice possible in the direction of one’s preference.

Aventador: Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Peacegirl: You are jumping the gun. How can harm be measured when harm is no more? I know this sounds crazy to someone that has not yet understood why this is possible.

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Aventador: What if the imposition of these conditions is something people don’t want done to themselves? Is this not a form of dictatorship constituting culture? What is this necessity you mention, what are these dynamics and how does it come to express itself in space time?

[peacegirl]

@Aventador

Aventador: Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: But you are not talking about offering people ways. You are talking about making sure only the conditions that lead to that perception of a better way exist, and that ‘making sure’ is known also as imposing.

Peacegirl: This is not about “making sure” of anything. There is no imposition whatsoever.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: So I understand you correctly that evil is synonymous with causing hurt.

Peacegirl: In this context, yes. This was clarified in the book.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: It seems what we are talking about here is imposing a set of conditions, given which people will continue to choose options that they think will help their lives as they did before. So there is an imposition, the imposition of conditions.

Peacegirl: There is no imposition of conditions. Imposition does not enter into this. Just because people may see a better way of life based on these principles does not mean they are choosing out of an imposition.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: When you say extended, the extension itself requires implementation. So far, by your descriptions, by the imposition of conditions. It seems to me the question still remains whether imposition is harm, and whether that invalidates your hypothesis.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: How can these implementations occur without them being caused to occur?

Peacegirl: Free will does not exist therefore any implementation of these principles is in keeping with determinism, which only means choosing the only choice possible in the direction of one’s preference.

Aventador: Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Peacegirl: You are jumping ahead which is understandable but will confuse you because you can’t see the whole picture. Everything cannot be explained in a few disjointed posts. Let me just say this: How can harm be measured when harm is no more? I know this sounds crazy to someone that has not yet understood why this is possible.

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: I hope I understand your question adequately. Maybe you can rephrase it.
Any kind of societal, religious, or cultural control is coming to an end. This kind of control —- although not considered physical violence —- is a form of authoritarianism that paradoxically is responsible for the fight for freedom.

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Aventador: What if the imposition of these conditions is something people don’t want done to themselves? Is this not a form of dictatorship constituting culture? What is this necessity you mention, what are these dynamics and how does it come to express itself in space time?

Peacegirl: Please keep in mind that this law of our nature imposes nothing on anyone. If someone wants to live in a world of blame, no one is telling them what to do. If they want to live under authoritarian control, no one is stopping them. To be clear: Cultural dictates are just one form of control which was necessary until now. When the new environment (once these undeniable principles are in place) no one could desire to hurt another as a preferred choice when conscience can no longer justify such an action. This is an immutable law. This is not an opinion. You really need to read the first three chapters as starter if you’re interested.

declineandfallofallevil.com/ … APTERS.pdf

[Aventador]

@peacegirl

Aventador: Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Peacegirl: You are jumping ahead which is understandable but will confuse you because you can’t see the whole picture. Everything cannot be explained in a few disjointed posts. Let me just say this: How can harm be measured when harm is no more? I know this sounds crazy to someone that has not yet understood why this is possible.

No it is not confusing, it is an old idea. It is the same reasoning Nazis used for their “utopia:” evil now for good later. This is how they justified concentration camps. None of the officers felt there was anything ‘good’ about them. They thought, and wrote about this, that they were sacrificing their own humanity for the good of the future.

Everybody’s evildoing is banned… but ours. While we get rid of theirs.

But this obviously constitutes a violation of your idea that doing harm is bad, and no person would do a bad thing that is enlightened like you are.

You seem to vacillate between saying that nobody needs to do anything and you are simply predicting some kind of Hippy Enlightenment in the future to the more realistic notion that you and others will have to take actions to make this happen, depending on whether admitting this will seemingly violate your hypothesis, as I have laid out, or not.

Obviously it does. At least you can see it. But it’s creepy as shit.

[Aventador]

Viewed from this scope, whatever the thread was you mention in the OP about Nietzsche and feminism was probably rather tame and nonthreatening.

[Aventador]

Have you considered Zen, instead?

Here is an old Zen parable:

A Zen master and his student are walking through the forest. They arrive at a cave where some stranded tiger cubs are crying, starving.

The student says: “Master, what will we do?”

The master says: “You go that way and look for food, I will go this.”

The student goes in the direction indicated. After some time, he returns and finds the corpse of the master being eaten by the cubs.

[Sculptor]

@Aventador

Have you considered Zen, instead?

Here is an old Zen parable:

A Zen master and his student are walking through the forest. They arrive at a cave where some stranded tiger cubs are crying, starving.

The student says: “Master, what will we do?”

The master says: “You go that way and look for food, I will go this.”

The student goes in the direction indicated. After some time, he returns and finds the corpse of the master being eaten by the cubs.

Interesting but seemingly irrelevant.
Care to offer a connection?

[phyllo]

@Aventador

Have you considered Zen, instead?

Here is an old Zen parable:

A Zen master and his student are walking through the forest. They arrive at a cave where some stranded tiger cubs are crying, starving.

The student says: “Master, what will we do?”

The master says: “You go that way and look for food, I will go this.”

The student goes in the direction indicated. After some time, he returns and finds the corpse of the master being eaten by the cubs.

Sounds pretty silly.

What’s the Zen theme being communicated?

[peacegirl]

@Aventador

@peacegirl

Aventador: Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Peacegirl: You are jumping ahead which is understandable but will confuse you because you can’t see the whole picture. Everything cannot be explained in a few disjointed posts. Let me just say this: How can harm be measured when harm is no more? I know this sounds crazy to someone that has not yet understood why this is possible.

No it is not confusing, it is an old idea.

Peacegirl: What is an old idea?

Aventador: It is the same reasoning Nazis used for their “utopia:” evil now for good later.

Peacegirl: Huh???

Aventador: This is how they justified concentration camps. None of the officers felt there was anything ‘good’ about them. They thought, and wrote about this, that they were sacrificing their own humanity for the good of the future.

Peacegirl: They could justify their actions. They were under the auspices of determinism.

Aventador: Everybody’s evildoing is banned… but ours. While we get rid of theirs.

Peacegirl: All hurt is being removed, including yours. iThe word “evil” was defined. You must not have read it.

Aventador: But this obviously constitutes a violation of your idea that doing harm is bad, and no person would do a bad thing that is enlightened like you are.

Peacegirl: why the insult?

Aventador: You seem to vacillate between saying that nobody needs to do anything and you are simply predicting some kind of Hippy Enlightenment in the future to the more realistic notion that you and others will have to take actions to make this happen, depending on whether admitting this will seemingly violate your hypothesis, as I have laid out, or not.

Peacegirl: Actions are everything!

Aventador: Obviously it does. At least you can see it. But it’s creepy as shit.

Where does any of this discredit the author?

[Aventador]

@phyllo

@Aventador

Have you considered Zen, instead?

Here is an old Zen parable:

A Zen master and his student are walking through the forest. They arrive at a cave where some stranded tiger cubs are crying, starving.

The student says: “Master, what will we do?”

The master says: “You go that way and look for food, I will go this.”

The student goes in the direction indicated. After some time, he returns and finds the corpse of the master being eaten by the cubs.

Sounds pretty silly.

What’s the Zen theme being communicated?

Well if I could tell you that, it wouldn’t be very Zen, would it?

[Aventador]

@peacegirl

Where does any of this discredit the author?

My intent was not to discredit the author. Which is you, you are the author I am addressing. It was to address the specific questions about your hypothesis that I raised, which I did. Maybe with a heavier hand than I intended. My apologies, I haven’t watched golf in a while.

@peacegirl

Peacegirl: They could justify their actions. They were under the auspices of determinism.

Sureley, though, this is worth a re-read and some contemplation. Not only for the justification of Nazi concentration camps, but what the statement might imply about your own approach in this (political) hypothesis.

I won’t beat a dead horse to death, or whatever, thank you for your answers.