Whats your view on human nature

[DeletedUser20951]

Can I make a new game? Like a better game? Please?

Yes, yes you can. The world is your oyster, the rules are yours to make, but, you know, you may be subject to incarceration, and, uh, getting a beat-down when others don't take kindly to your rules. That's totally their problem, though.

 

[ajqtrz]

Refusing to play a game when the game is all there is means the same as throwing out the toys, and is a sign of immaturity and sullenness purely for sullenness' sake. I've never found the question of whether humanity should exist to be anything other than nonsensical; we do exist and we handle whatever hand we have been dealt in life, or we choose to argue in favor of and/or accept nothingness, which is absurd, as it eliminates any possibilities beyond nothing.

In the tone of your reply you make a lot of judgements -- "a sign of immaturity and sullenness for sullenness' sake" the "nonsensical" question, etc. Your basis is what you "found" and thus I'm wondering how you "found" these judgements to be true. I would appear they are a sense of things without logical basis and, in fact, it could be argued that if I "find" the opposite to be true then it's true for me and just as morally justified as your position. In the end that means, as previously stated, everything is a matter of power with the guy with the biggest stick determining what is right and wrong for every body else.

In addition, by saying "sullenness purely for sullenness' sake" you are expressing a measure of the motivation of the person holding the view. Upon what basis do you conclude "sullenness purely for sullenness' sake" is the motivation for the point of view? Again, you may sense this to be the case but surely your sense of things is not just woven out of thin air?

It is very logical (subjectively) to derive a conscience from what I believe is the most important aspect in life (as everybody does), and that is to have the ability to achieve self-fulfillment. Protecting individual autonomy from being infringed upon in a way that is not necessary to prevent harm (thus infringing on the freedom of others) is the broadest manner in which to allow this privilege to be accessible to the majority, including myself, as there is no one authority (again, including myself) that can declare exactly what this means for all of us (not ethically and free of hypocrisy, anyway).

"conscience" a the "most important aspect in life?" Why? Without a conscience one is free to do whatever he or she desires regardless of any moralizing. And if he or she decides to murder millions, upon what basis, other than personal predilections, can he or she be condemned? Once you make conscience a personal preference from within you declare there to be no right or wrong outside of that which is derived from force. And if the perpetrator of holocausts has better armies at his or her disposal, history will applaud the mass murders and justify it all. Personal sense of things is fine for personal actions but telling others their preferences are wrong means you have to have a standard outside your own personal predilections. We don't live alone and to argue as if we did and that we can each simply hold to our own personal view of things leads eventually to chaos -- "wars and rumors of wars," and so on.

And neither answer can be proven (I think it's both), but I believe it is prudent to err on the side of what causes the least amount of damage, regardless of the potential of some hidden 'truth' existing behind our actions.

Why "prudent?" Again, a judgement based upon personal perspective and sense of the matter. Of course, you could argue by "prudent you mean "wise" or perhaps, "effective." But if so then you have to consider that wisdom always has a goal -- a vision of why it's wise to do X rather than Y and the goal or effect of wise actions may not, in itself, be something everyone agrees upon. Some despots have found it wise and prudent to build concentration camps in which to house their enemies. So unless you can point to some universal value system derived from the "is" of existence, you, again, end up with the big stick approach to morality -- the exact opposite of a free conscience.

AJ

 

[Vergazi]

( eats popcorn and giggles a bit )

 

[DeletedUser]

"Do what thou wilt be the whole of the Law." -- Aleister Crowley

"...and the Wheel of Karma is going to come back around and bite you right in the ass." -- My Mother

 

[DeletedUser19483]

( eats popcorn and giggles a bit )

GOD [BAD WORD HERE] WHERE THE [BAD WORD HERE] IS THE [BAD WORD HERE] [BAD WORD HERE] [BAD WORD HERE] LIKE BUTTON!!!!

 

[DeletedUser20951]

First, I have to say how much I approve of the font change. Much easier to read. WELL DONE. Second, I've never had much fun repeating myself, but you appear to like that, so I can compromise a bit.

In the tone of your reply you make a lot of judgements

I think you missed my post about the natural, ingrained proclivity to judge everything we encounter. We always have an opinion, even if that opinion doesn't amount to much of anything at all. I'd rather not pretend to have none and prefer to state my stance boldly without deflection or dissembling, while your habit seems to be to pointing to history as a be all to end all discussions. I would like to see you use your own perceptions and judgments, but I understand why you don't, as it is safer.

Upon what basis do you conclude "sullenness purely for sullenness' sake" is the motivation for the point of view?

Oh, they might think they have a different reason, but it's difficult to argue overly with the result. If you choose to give meaning to nothing, then you, yourself, are nothing, and I have no time for childish nothings. Their promotions and desire to spread this inane attitude belies exactly what they espouse.

Without a conscience one is free to do whatever he or she desires regardless of any moralizing.

I've put it on record, over and over and over and over again, why just doing whatever you want isn't in your best interest, nor does it snag you the most freedom. Stomping on others does not further my cause. Instead, it encourages the opposite, given our customary practice of copying what is of the greatest prevalence. You have to place your actions where your mouth is running or it's simply lip service.

Again, a judgement based upon personal perspective and sense of the matter.

Do continue to point out the obvious fact of existence, as though you are somehow exempt from it.

*hands @Vergazi candy thingies to go with the popcorn*

 

[ajqtrz]

@Nonchalant Antipathy Our natural proclivity to judge, if it exists (Kenneth Burke, the Marxist critique suggested humans are "goaded by hierarchy" which is just a more complex way to say we naturally judge), is not, itself, a logical justification for judging. Just because I have an innate desire to do something does not mean I'm justified in doing it, otherwise psychopaths and sociopaths would be justified (if we assume they have some biological/genetic drive to be as they are). Again, what "is" cannot validate what "ought" be. Or, as it's often put, "you cannot get "ought" from "is." I would add you cannot get "ought" from "is" unless you are the creator of the "is," in which case it's very existence would be for some purpose and that, in itself, could be construed as the "ought" imperative. Materialism posits no creator of the is and thus no purpose can be derived from anythings existence. Nietzsche argued that all ideas of good and evil (i.e. innate good and innate evil) were just a ploy used by one group to protect themselves from the stronger groups around them. But his real point is that "good and evil" should be understood as utilitarian -- it's good because it benefits me and evil if it does not. From this he suggests that, ultimately, the strongest will determine good and evil for the less strong -- the only real determiner of good being the force necessary to enforce you conceptions of it.

Why not pretend to not have an opinion? I'm curious as to why you have one since there is little philosophical basis for judgement. You can, of course, reply that you have a proclivity to judge because you have it and leave it at that, but that's a weak argument. The question is: should you make judgements? And the minute you have asked that question you have to ask, "upon what basis?" Sadly self-examination, if done rationally, drives one to realize pretty quickly that much of our propensity to judge drives us to unwarranted and irrational judgements.

When you say, "oh they might think they have a different reason" I'm wondering how you can be so confident about another inner motivations that you can imply they are deluded if they don't agree with your assessment of their inner state of being. I suppose, as you will no doubt conclude, you have the right to an opinion, but I also think you can agree that some opinions are more rational and more reasonable than others. I may think I'm perfectly fit, but if I fall down, short of breath, after running twenty feet and end up in the hospital my assessment flies in the face of a rational measure. Instinctive or intuitive understandings are to be acknowledged but too often, as Kant noted, we are wrong.

Finally, I apologize if I missed it, but I don't remember the argument being made that "doing whatever you want isn't in your best interest, nor does it snag you the most freedom." I do vaguely remember the claim being made, but no reasoning, evidence etc being presented. So why do you think this is the case and is it a universally applicable rule? I mean suppose I was the absolute monarch with enough power to crush everybody I wanted to crush and take everything I wanted to take when I wanted it. In the process I also write the history and write it such that those who follow after are taught about how great I was and how wonderful. What's to not like about that? In what way would I not be free? If I were a psychopath I wouldn't even feel guilty. (Or is it a sociopath that feels no guilt? -- I'll have to stop and look the terms up, I think.) Anyway, what's your reasoning behind this claim?

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

The question is: should you make judgements? And the minute you have asked that question you have to ask, "upon what basis?" Sadly self-examination, if done rationally, drives one to realize pretty quickly that much of our propensity to judge drives us to unwarranted and irrational judgements.

Should you make judgments? Absolutely, but not simply because it is inevitable, on the basis that we have to make some kind of assumption regarding that which affects us (even when it's only mentally), no matter how unwarranted or irrational. Unless a response is completely automated and requires no conscious propelling factor (breathing and whatnot), we need a guide for choosing one route over another, otherwise we would be constantly frozen with indecision. Pausing to formulate a judgment before selection isn't a lack of judgment, it just means that the outcome has the potential to possess a better rationalization, and none are set in stone, although that's a common misconception. We modify our judgments, whether by altering or solidifying our current stance, in perpetuity.

I'm wondering how you can be so confident about another inner motivations that you can imply they are deluded if they don't agree with your assessment of their inner state of being. I suppose, as you will no doubt conclude, you have the right to an opinion, but I also think you can agree that some opinions are more rational and more reasonable than others.

My confidence is likely driven by arrogance and a lack of authentic esteem held for the opinions of others. I fully respect everybody's right to have an opinion and I find opposing views interesting, in that they provoke me into looking at stuff in a way I wouldn't be able to on my own, but I believe my opinion is the ruling body of my actions, words, and thoughts, and that this is, or should be, the same for each individual; placing the most importance on what we perceive and how we interpret what we perceive, personally. If you pay attention, I very rarely claim, in absolute terms, that what I think they think is the sole accurate reality, and much of my arguing is merely my form of expressing my beliefs, which is usually in a more insulting tone the more the opponent implies that their validity is the sole accurate reality, which is not something that exists. Our realities, while shared, are never identical.

I do vaguely remember the claim being made, but no reasoning, evidence etc being presented. So why do you think this is the case and is it a universally applicable rule? I mean suppose I was the absolute monarch with enough power to crush everybody I wanted to crush and take everything I wanted to take when I wanted it. In the process I also write the history and write it such that those who follow after are taught about how great I was and how wonderful. What's to not like about that? In what way would I not be free? If I were a psychopath I wouldn't even feel guilty. (Or is it a sociopath that feels no guilt? -- I'll have to stop and look the terms up, I think.) Anyway, what's your reasoning behind this claim?

Yeah, I don't think I did explicitly spell it out, just inferred. Psychopathy (this is the same as sociopathy, but the word is being phased out of the psychiatric field) is a marvelously fascinating personality trait (I may be biased towards this opinion because of my suspicion that I am a psychopath). If you look into it, psychopaths are usually extremely skilled at adhering to rules of every flavor (when they want to follow 'em) due to understanding, comprehensively and with no emotional leanings in regards to morality, the consequences suffered when they violate rules. Sure, being a tyrant would be the perfect state for many, but it is not a feasible possibility for the majority. It is not a feasible possibility for me. What is, is helping to ensure that there are no tyrants, in general, which limits the chances of my being subjected to their oppression. Pretty karmic, I guess. What goes around does tend to come around in most situations, mainly because of cause and effect, and I want more causes out there in order to increase the probability of the effects I want in return. Completely self-serving benevolence, for if I desire to be treated with compassion, the behavior has to originate somewhere and I firmly believe that I, myself, should be the origin, with no quibbling over whether someone else started it or isn't following it or responding in kind and any other justification under the sun used to excuse cruelty.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Yeah, I don't think I did explicitly spell it out, just inferred.

No, wait, I'm quite certain that I did, somewhere in here and in other threads. "Modeling the behavior I want others to exhibit", yadda yadda yadda, and so on and so forth along that line. I'm not searching for it, though, but if someone wants to prove me wrong, such diligence and effort in performing this tedious service for me would be appreciated.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Son of a bore! All of my chatter on the matter makes it sound like I believe in always being kind, which is definitely not true. While positive reinforcement often has the greatest long-term impact on conditioning a person, I am definitely not against the lazier and less effective method of using punishment to prevent conduct I find offensive for whatever reason. It's also better at grabbing attention, which is why I commonly switch from one to the other.

Edit to prevent more over-posting: Ugh, my focus on the subject is slipping. Whenever I start repeating words, unintentionally (CAN YOU SPOT THE HORRIBLE INSTANCES HERE?), it's a sign of my faltering interest in the present. It'll return, but I get tired of anything that's repetitious (in this case, it's forum usage, not the topic; this topic is delightful to me), with the only variance being how long it takes for the weariness to set in.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Hmm... My level of introspection is even higher than normal, and I think I might have just had an epiphany due to contemplating what I stated previously, although I do have a habit of forgetting that I have already put the pieces together and it merely seems like a sudden insight. Anyway, besides the core base of selfishness, my two main motivating urges can be simplistically categorized into either wanting to prevent being controlled by outside forces and avoiding boredom. It's not often that I am genuinely bored (I can't recall any specific instance of it, but I assume it does occur); I have no trouble entertaining myself or picking an activity to engage in when the current loses its shine, and no problem doing nothing physically but waiting, because of whatever I'm getting up to inside of my head or focusing on, and analyzing, my surroundings in minute detail. Now, I've established that I don't form attachments to people, not in the sense of cherishing, and wanting to seek out, their presence. No one is spared this absence of devotion, although I can maintain connections out of obligation and usefulness, if I believe the benefits outweigh the effort, and am capable of feeling affection towards another, viewing them favorably, but, all in all, it usually doesn't matter to me who I am interacting with. The question mark in this has always been, "Why?", and I am sure that part of it is brain damage, faulty wiring, chemical imbalances, etc., but it's difficult to quantify how much is responsible. *stares briefly at unintended wall of text* I don't plan out anything I say or type, other than a vague gist of what I want to convey, and allow the flow of my thoughts to dictate where I end up, but I do have a point to this rambling, which is that I have newly identified another contributing factor to my lack of developing emotional bonds. It's impossible to fully know everything about anybody, but most aren't overly complicated, or, at least, aren't challenging to learn to predict with decent accuracy and- JESUS CHRIST, WHERE ARE YOU, CONCISION? Okay, adding this sentiment together with my chief purpose for voluntary social interaction being to achieve novelty of experience means that people are quickly exhausted as a source of it, and once my curiosity wanes, so does my tolerance for their proximity, as they no longer serve my primary goal of presenting a puzzle to be figured out. *laughs* Ah, writing it out like this really highlights what a dreadful person I am, but I knew that already. To be fair, while I am my own favorite object of discussion, I still find myself dull and uninteresting, as well, with repeated, excessive exposure to my thoughts about myself and hearing myself talk, and don't expect anyone else to regard me with special significance.

 

[DeletedUser19483]

sorry @Nonchalant Antipathy I'm a little sleep deprived as I type this but it seems like your experiencing the same the last client I had had. I told him not to worry because it just meant the devil on his shoulder killed his angel. Now if your as far gone as my last client you'll have thought of some thing on the lines of

Spoiler

Nah that ain't it I clearly remember squashing those two bugs as a kid

if you have reached this stage I suggest you take a good long look and smile......I smile for miles....ooh sleep is calling me and I can't leave it alone any more..... But before I go I part with this..... I won't remember typing this up when I wake up till I look at this sooooo....does that make me innocent of my actions? If yes then day me is a saint if no.....well tenth level of hell here I come

 

[DeletedUser20951]

I smile for miles....

*draws lips back from teeth and imitates friendly shark* SAME.

well tenth level of hell here I come

I figure, on the unlikely premise that an afterlife exists, that the Hells would be a relatively 'acceptable' outcome for transgressions committed during life, albeit boring (NO!). The concept of eternal damnation doesn't hold much water with my sense of justice, as the endless punishment doesn't fit the bill for any possible crime, no matter how atrocious and personally repugnant, but, while I don't really forgive, I don't hold grudges, either. Prevention is more proactive than attempting to invoke an eye for an eye sort of subjective payback, but the fear of retribution is often an effective tool of determent.

 

[DeletedUser]

The concept of eternal damnation doesn't hold much water with my sense of justice, as the endless punishment doesn't fit the bill for any possible crime, no matter how atrocious and personally repugnant

Adolf Hitler, Josef Mengele, Pol Pot, Idi Amin (just to name a few)? In my mindset, there is no scrubbing the stain from their souls for the atrocities they committed.

 

[DeletedUser23732]

Ok people gather around. Get comfy. And let's talk about our views on human, or any, nature. Yup that's right philosophy(gentle smile that hides my inner turmoil)

As to humans in general, they are a hateful lot. . In a nutshell, the slightest annoyance and they will rip your head off. . Figuratively, most of the time, that is unless you scared them, then all bets are off. . Then, it becomes literal.

As to your signature:

I like the smile. . They can hide many things, so thanks for the clarification.

And the signature's quote:

Why not? . Have you seen MacGyver? . Murdock almost succeeded. . Perhaps, you can find the one.

 

[DeletedUser19483]

why ello there @LEH.elven not to be rude but......that name sounds quite bot like............eh what do I know... nothing....I know nothing.... *shakes head* anyway what makes yah bring up such an old message?

 

[DeletedUser19483]

ALSO I'M SORRY FOR MY SLEEP DEPRIVED MESSAGE @Nonchalant Antipathy

 

[DeletedUser23732]

why ello there @LEH.elven not to be rude but......that name sounds quite bot like............eh what do I know... nothing....I know nothing.... *shakes head* anyway what makes yah bring up such an old message?

Don't know about bot-like, but it is programmer logic. Account Name here: LEH.us2.elven@gmail.com

As to why? New to the forum, and thought it would speak more directly to the question than the chaos it seems to degenerated into. . To be fair, I only read one post on the 9th page.

 

[DeletedUser19483]

@LEH.elven CHAOS?! CHAOS!!?? IS THAT NOT THE HUMAN CONDITION? to forever be trapped in the cycle of life and death looking for meaning in a world with out meaning? to hope and pray to nothing but air thinking their GOD is real? WELL IF THEIR GOD IS REAL THEN WHY WOULD HE CARE? Why would a god give a second look at such a failed species??!!! ANSWER ME!!!!! But yah we are a bit crazy am I right hope you have fun here and don't do anything I would do

 

[DeletedUser20951]

ALSO I'M SORRY FOR MY SLEEP DEPRIVED MESSAGE

Ah Christ, sleep deprived messages are supposed to be apologized for? I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN. Nearly all of mine are! (no worries)

CHAOS?! CHAOS!!?? IS THAT NOT THE HUMAN CONDITION?

Woot! Woot! Woot! Rah! Rah! RAH! GO, CHAOS! Oh YEAH.

Why would a god give a second look at such a failed species??!!!

I have often wondered at the innate hubris of so many believing we are of such importance as to garner more than a brief glint of interest from a God, should one exist, except in the sense of perhaps being a mildly entertaining human ant farm. *squints*