There's this weird obsession among some people that human beings are perfectable; that all humans can work together without any individualism or ego. However, they can never come up with an example of that ever working or lasting throughout history among intelligent lifeforms.
You are literally the example Van. You, me, the entire contemporary society are the example for the fact that human are perfectable.
It's really crazy that you can't see it despite your knowledge. And that's something I found truly fascinating with you. You have a lot of knowledge about a lot of things, but it seems like you can't put all of this together to form a cohesif all.
You are talking here about individualism or ego, when I'm literally showing you that those things can be shaped toward better behaviors through structural change.
---------------------------
---------------------------
I gotta ask guyz, what do you not understand in the sentence "
we are all the result of the material conditions of our existance" ?
I'm repeating this sentence over and over and over again, and it's like you guyz are seeing it, but you are not reading it. What will it take for you to understand this simple principle ? I don't understand..
This is really something I'm failing at. I know the importance of this principle, I know I had to learn it somehow, but I'm unable to find the solution or ther guiding step to make you understand it as well. It's really a feeling of powerlessness...
Logiko back at it again, splitting the atom with these highly nuanced distinctions.
Last week it was knowledge isn't truth, now ethics are not morals
eth·ic
/ˈeTHik/
noun
noun:
ethic; plural noun:
ethics
- a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"
adjective
rare
adjective:
ethic
- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
I swear... People have dictionnaries fetishes here.. How many timedo I need to repeat that knowledge can't be found in a freaking dictionnary ?? Omfg !
Ethics and morals are two very different things:
- Morals is set to be abolute principles based on subjectivity.
- Ethics is relativistic, it takes context into consideration.
I'm talking here about ethic. Try to keep up.
Even then, it's bullshit. Earlier you said the death penalty is bad because a person is deprived of their future life, yet somehow killing a fetus which has it's whole life ahead of it isn't a negative?
This is a good argument. But there is a catch. In the case of a featus, there is another person involved and thus, to the principle of preventing a possible force of good we need to add the context of the individual who is pregnant and might suffer because of the arrival of the baby, in physical terms, in financial terms, in relationships, in mental terms etc.
And in the case of a feotus, I consider that the care a living being must take priority over a potential one.
So as you can see, my reasonning is practical and ethical. I'm looking at reality with a cold eye on this topic.
Now, the situation gets complicated when there is a deny of pregnency. This is where things get shaky and relativistic. but that's another subject.
And also, since your metric is whether or not "suffering" (of a purely physical kind) defines who is worth keeping alive, why not kill people who cannot feel pain, such as those in a deep coma? Killing them wouldn't cause them any suffering right?
Another good question, but ironically enough, this time you need to reverse my previous argument.
In this case, there is noone involved and so said person can be a potential for good and but be keepen alive at all cost.
For people on their death bed, aside from public services in some cases, noone is involved too. And so, we can prevent a person from dying because there is a possibility of potential force for good. Even an old woman on her death bed can change the world.
Again, the reasonning is practical and ethical. And frankly, really simple. Now if you want to give me other example to challenge this vision, go ahead, I actually like to discuss with that types of argumentation. It feels like we are moving toward something.
Humans make radical decisions on a whim everyday, just take a stroll in Detroit and you'll see for yourself
Radical descision yes. Not radical change. For example, an incel rapist could choose, one day, to protect a woman. It would be a radical descision depending on his worldview. But would it create radical change ?
No.
It would create change yes, it could, but just a little. For a radical change to happen, this man would need to rewrite his vision of the world on specific subject and even then, it would not turn him into an angel, just a little bit less dangerous.
Again, to transform someone like that into the opposite, it would requiere a change so drastic that it could kill the guy. Realizations are not something to mess with. Really, I'm being dead *ss serious here.
There is a reason why I'm always saying that I'm slowing radicalizing toward my next ideology and not just rushing it. Realizations need buildings blocks to stand on.
As for this..
I know you deny that humans have free will, but yes, we do
Sadly I wouldn't want to rush you into thinking that it does not.... but it does not exist.
Let's use the button metaphor again. But this time we will make it a lot more simpler:
- You wake up attached to a chair. You are close to a switch of two train track
- There is the person you love the most attached on the main tracks in front of you.
- A train is coming and it will run over your loved one
- You can only move your hand to a button
- If press it, the button actionnate the switch and you know the train will be deviated toward a safe track.
- You get 50$ if you don't press the button
Do you think you will choose
not to press the button ?
Always fun to talk with people here.
Humans don't need a Dressrosa sized arc to make a radical change of their will instantly.
No indeed. A radical change can happen. I'm talking about the impossibility of a change that is beyond a radical change.
If I'm a liberal and I become a conservatist, it will be a normal change. If I'm a conservatist far rightist and I suddenly become progressive, it will be a radical change. But If I'm a fascist and I suddenly turn into a radical anti-colonial and anti-racist leftist, then it would not be radical, it would be miraculous and extrem. Such a change would require the rewiring of my entire vision of the world.
The result would put me in a state of intense confusion and - most probably - depression. It would neutralize me.
There is a reason why this:
.. Was depicted as the
ultrimate weapon and was depicted as the last resort and a very bitter one to protect people.
An extrem change like the instant deradicalization of a person would require a technology allowing a person to amass vast amount of knowledge in a very short period of time while doing in it in such a way that a person can be guided precisely toward the right knowledge without constraint in a way that will not create confusion and will not push the person toward an horrible ending.
You can't force an ex trem change unless you know a way to show everything needed to guide a person toward a peacefull realization based on a restructuration of the entire vision of the world.. If you use fear, you will create an highly instable person.
And this can be verified in any parental homes where the fear of punishment is used to prevent bad behaviors.
Sadly, we are not the Ancients and we need to go through a LOTS of small change to start to really move toward something different. BTW, it's one of the reason why Oda showing the fear of Usopp again and again, despite him fighting through them.
An action is just deliberation (intellect percieves a good) + volution (free will freely chooses that perceieved good).
No. An action is
will + effort and positive action is
Understanding + Will + Effort
In the case of a radical change, the understanding part would need to be radical. And to get a radical understanding of reality, you need to be met with radical material conditions of existences. Either through your empathy or through your personnal life.
Why couldn't the following 2 take place instantly?
1.) Criminal, who likes murder, is in bed and thinks about ramifications of murder (intellection)
2.) Criminal decides he doesn't want to do it anymore (volition)
Ok, so there is a missunderstanding here.
I'm not telling you that change can't happen instantly or that realization can't happen instantly. Realization DO happen most of the time instantly.
What I'm telling you is that there is a difference between a transformation (I will use this word from now on) and a realization.
In storytelling, the realization arrives (most of the time) at the END of the transformation. There is a reason why in movies, there is an hour and a half of preparation before a what the realization of a full transformation. It's because the transformation is happening during the ENTIRE movie.
I'm sorry but you will have to trust me on this. (Or read this book, it will make you understand:
The point is. A transformation happens during the entire movie. At the end, the realization finalize the transformation. But the acts before this realization are asbolutely needed or there will be no transformation at all !
I always come back to this example because I find the clarity of this scene fascinating:
I
n this example we see a few things:
- Jones threatens Will but Jack threatens the hearth of Davy Jones
- We know that however stabs the hearth of Jones will be granted the helms of the Flying Duchman and will become immortal.
- Jones laughs and stabs Will to death.
- Jack is shocked
- The father of will intervene to stop Jones
- Jack uses the hand of Will to stabs the hearth of Davy Jones
- Jones is killed and Will is saved.
Now.. What happens in reality in this beautiful scene ?
Well, we see the end of a transformation , the one of Jack Sparrow. Jack finalize his entire character arc that began in the first movie. You see, Jack is a very egotistical character, he only wants one thing, his own freedom and the possibility to do exactly what he wants.
At the beginning of the movie, we have seen Jack deal with the reality of death itself that happened because he choosed to sacrifice himself. He didn't like that, in fact, since that moment jack had only one objective, to be free of the curse of Jones and to get the possibility to live an immortal and free life on the seas.
But.. what does he chooses here ? To save Will. Despite fighting many times against him during this movie included.
You see, to get to that realization and this action of change, a simple intellectualization and a good choice would never be enough. For this to happen, Jack and Will had to live and fight together for THREE WHOLE MOVIES. At the end and despite their differences, they became friends and Jack just couldn't let him die.
So despite his enormous egoism.. jack choosed the right action and saved his friend. THis is a radical change but as you can see, this was not an extrem one.
For an extrem change to happen, Jack would need tobe able to make this choice at the beginning of the first movies. And as we know it, it was not possible since Jack was very different at the beginning of the first movie. In fact a lot of his beliefs were challenged during this trilogy (hence why Jack is a fan favorite). There is a continuity. For one change to happen, another had to happen before that. Realization after realization, Jack became a more respectable person and a friend.
Storytellers usually understand the process of transformation really well. So you should trust me when I say that extreme change needs an Water Seven like arc of character to happen. It's a necessity. Unless you expect a person to become highly unstable, in which case, go ahead, but be aware of the consequences.
Me: "Humans perform good actions due to perceived acquired good external to the action, such as safety, or not being punished, or reducing some bad outcome...or they perform a good action for the sake of doing good itself"
You: "No, humans do good actions because of social pressure"
I'm sorry, I thought you were reducing those pressure to only two parameters. Maybe you should be clearer on that.
You must be low iq because these are not contradictory statements
Always fun to interact with people here...
Well, at least you are not calling me R*tarded so I guess it's a win ?
YouTube algorithm promotes doing yoga, people start doing it because they perceieve some external good to doing yoga
That's not what I had in my when I'm talking about the algorythm of youtube.
I'm talking about the structures not the content inside this structure. For example, when you create a system where you need to make at least 10 precise minutes of content to put adds on a video, you will see behavior change within content creator and people will start to make videos that last 10.01 min. and you will see thousand and thousands of them.
This is what I meant when I say that structures shape behaviors.
I don't really care if you accept it, some people will not change unless forcibly pressured and for murderers
That's because we do not have a better system to change them at the moment.
Don't think that because you can't hink a better world, it's impossible.
It is possible. You just refuses to think about the possibility.
You can give them a life sentence and all the rehabilitation you want and they will give 0 shits
Indeed. Which is another reason why prisons are useless.
Good dog
No kink shaming.
Humanity = form of the human
Humans exist, therefore humanity exists.
Not only no.
"Humanity" is what we call our specie
"Humanity" is also what we call the nature of the action of a person who acts with kindness and empathy.
And thus, when I talk about the concept of humanity being a social construct, I'm talking about the second case and not the first.
