…or does our conscience, or lack there of, define us?
A New Conceptualization of the Conscience
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01863/full
We’ll need a context of course. So, this being your thread, pick one.
Yes of course, because there is no context here, right simpleton.
We need to make it personal…so once I stole some money and my conscience bothered me, for a while.
Should I feel bad, or good?
Our conscience defines us first because it expresses a primal need to belong and to include, but also because it becomes more stringent and discriminating defining what we wish to become and with what we wish to identify with.
From genes to memes.
Nihilism takes advantage of the primal, our lowest-common-denominator, our fear that we will be denied access, refused, and rejected.
Our conscience warns us that there is a risk.
Science seems to say that the conscience fully develops by seven years old, nihilism has already taken root, that early?
Satyr wrote
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.
Does not cultural imprinting start from birth?
One learns to imitate and then, gradually, one understands the benefits, the advantages of denying reality, or self, or whatever the meme teaches.
It seduces because it offers relief.
Adolescence is when it takes root, because then the mind learns what it can express and what is forbidden, or how it compares to others, because now there’s a sexual component and this is when it really begins to hurt when self-awarness exposes you to how you compare with others…
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.
In the study above, conscience is all about self esteem which I’ve never heard of before and have never considered. So from your post above, you agree, it is about self esteem?
Even so why does trauma only affect some rather than all who suffered similar or even worse horrors?
Are you absolutely sure they’re not unconsciously or semi consciously masochists, feeding off the wrong sensations it gives them?
Self esteem affects everything…it is the standard we use to evaluate others.
People with low self-esteem seek mates that compensate and complete them, as they say; those with high self-esteem seek mates that accentuate and multiply …there’s a difference between males and females in this regard.
Maybe we can get into details another day, if I’m not banned.
Many factors could be involved…firstly, not all psychological constitutions are equal…secondly it depends on if the trauma is shared or experienced alone…etc.
But, of course masochism is part of it - a kind of self-punishment.
When the ideal cannot be attained the mind turns on itself punishing others who fail to live up to the standard so as to not punish themselves directly.
“if trauma is shared or experienced alone” Tell me more. If you have any studies or articles I’d very much like to know more about the shared experience, what specifically shared means (other siblings, another parent, others knowing about abuse, etc.)
Well, to some degree. But I think it’s important to know what we are talking about when we talk about conscience. I think many people conflate guilt, shame and regret. So, any unpleasant feeling after an act is the result of conscience. One part of the self judging another part. But one need not feel guilt or shame but still decide one does not want to repeat an action. One can dislike the consequences or even the felt attitude one had/has, say in relation to a friend.
You told other about some secret your friend had told you in confidence. Your friend got upset or sad or angry or all those. You can learn from that experience in a number of ways. Ways that don’t involve a voice in the brain laying out a morality or chastizing you or you moping around feeling guilty or ashamed or drawing conclusions about your own nature at all. You could regret you did it, now having experienced what happened and also yourself. You might have other reactions that lead you to reevaluate the friendship, your friend.
When people talk about conscience I tend to think they have a model with parts of the self - one this moral monitor who chastizes, sort of an internal priest, and the other the everyday self, the potential sinner. Even if the word sin and priest don’t seem like parts of the person’s belief system. IOW secular atheists can still have a priest and sinner model in their mind.
But that opens up a huge can of worms, so I won’t go further here.
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.
is a person even actually distinct from their conscience? if not, then the question doesnt make sense. if so, then the answer is both.
“against our morals” Are they ours? Developed by us? From observing and mimicing ? What is flipping the emotional switch that raps us for misbehaving, poor self esteem?
I’m still trying to figure out if anyone is scientifically born without a conscience, for reals. You don’t think there is a difference in a preprogrammed biological imperative that auto corrects us as opposed to a malleable biological component that makes allowances for our input?
if its distinct from the person then the question makes sense. if not then it mean i cant make sense.
its the same thing at the rationalism/empiricism debate just with the word “conscience” in place of “knowledge”.
we arent going to sort it out here.
I added a bit more above
like is a baby born a blank slate and then through experience gain a conscience or is the conscience innate the consensus at least with knowledge is that its a little bit of both