Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 19:59:52 GMT -5
I've already said my piece. Sorry if you don't like it. So you and Bob can go page after page on some esoteric topics, but mine is way too plebeian to be worth anything. Okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 14:58:50 GMT -5
I've already said my piece. Sorry if you don't like it. So you and Bob can go page after page on some esoteric topics, but mine is way too plebeian to be worth anything. Okay. And, besides, I wasn't specifically addressing you. Just in general someone. But that's okay. I'll have more to add when I finish the book. I'm especially curious as to how Dr. Peck in the end, describes "Evil" as to what it really is. So far it seems more like a mental illness, but different from a mental illness in that a person could be helped to reject evilness in themselves. So a bit confusing
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 15, 2018 16:41:59 GMT -5
It's double tricky because both individuals and societies can be "mentally ill." Like "evil", "mentally ill" can have many different meanings. 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 17:43:34 GMT -5
It's double tricky because both individuals and societies can be "mentally ill." Like "evil", "mentally ill" can have many different meanings. 8-< Well, what I'm getting so far is that mental illness is not something voluntary but can be treated. And evilness is something that one chooses and can't be treated unless one wants it to be. Becoming evil is in the choices one makes over time and it changes you into becoming some other type of being. And in this book being sociopathic or psychopathic is different from evil, which at this point in the book, I don't understand. I hoping to find out more as it goes on.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 15, 2018 20:18:25 GMT -5
It's double tricky because both individuals and societies can be "mentally ill." Like "evil", "mentally ill" can have many different meanings. 8-< Well, what I'm getting so far is that mental illness is not something voluntary but can be treated. And evilness is something that one chooses and can't be treated unless one wants it to be. Becoming evil is in the choices one makes over time and it changes you into becoming some other type of being.
That I agree with 100%. One bad choice leads to another. You can also see that with evil groups throughout history.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 17:57:44 GMT -5
I've already said my piece. Sorry if you don't like it. So you and Bob can go page after page on some esoteric topics, but mine is way too plebeian to be worth anything. Okay. In the past month or so the only responses I received from you were either put-downs or complaints, so I admit that my desire to talk to you at all has pretty much reached zero at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 18:46:40 GMT -5
I haven't responded to you or Bob in the past months at all; in fact I made it a point not to, because it was useless. I never intentionally did that to you, anyway, unless it got caught up with something Bob said. In any case I agree with you 95% of the time. So, sorry if I dissed you unintentionally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 11:56:48 GMT -5
Sorry for lashing out, but sometimes it's really hard to engage in a discussion sometimes when you're being a grumpycat. I responded to your question the way I did because I found the question too limiting. I don't think being "good" or "bad" can be tied to conscience or lack of conscience, because to me it appears to reduce morality to something internal rather than looking at actions and their consequences. For me, moral intention alone isn't enough, we also have to look at the morality of actions and their consequences. At that level of moral action, somebody who does bad things and feels bad about it isn't really different from somebody who does bad things and doesn't feel bad about it. We can only see a difference if that bad conscience actually leads them to stop doing bad things.
Put simply, the morality of my action doesn't change just because I feel sorry about it afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 18, 2018 12:43:00 GMT -5
I don't think being "good" or "bad" can be tied to conscience or lack of conscience, because to me it appears to reduce morality to something internal rather than looking at actions and their consequences. For me, moral intention alone isn't enough, we also have to look at the morality of actions and their consequences. At that level of moral action, somebody who does bad things and feels bad about it isn't really different from somebody who does bad things and doesn't feel bad about it. We can only see a difference if that bad conscience actually leads them to stop doing bad things.
Put simply, the morality of my action doesn't change just because I feel sorry about it afterwards.
Good point. I agree.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 22:01:41 GMT -5
I know I've been very confusing. Yes, of course, I believe that bad acts are immoral. But what I've been saying and asking is what is the source of the bad acts. And remember, Dr Peck is a psychiatrist and has hypothesized that "Evil' could be added to under the official psychiatric personality disorders designations. I've peeked at one of the next chapters where the question is whether Satan is real or not. I should have mentioned that Dr. Peck is a Christian but also feels that all religions and atheists don't make a difference.
So, I need to read on and get back to you, unless any of you have any opinions to add now.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 18, 2018 23:36:11 GMT -5
I know I've been very confusing. Yes, of course, I believe that bad acts are immoral. But what I've been saying and asking is what is the source of the bad acts. And remember, Dr Peck is a psychiatrist and has hypothesized that "Evil' could be added to under the official psychiatric personality disorders designations. I've peeked at one of the next chapters where the question is whether Satan is real or not. I should have mentioned that Dr. Peck is a Christian but also feels that all religions and atheists don't make a difference. So, I need to read on and get back to you, unless any of you have any opinions to add now.
Dr. Peck is a psychotherapist, but he is not a sociologist. How would he explain when a whole country goes evil, like Germany during the Third Reich?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 19, 2018 8:10:17 GMT -5
That's the real problem - people virtually never do "bad" things. They almost always believe that what they do is is "good" and even necessary. Nazis were defending Western civilization from Jews and communists, Stalin was defending the common man from capitalist exploiters, the KKK was (is) defending superior white culture from contamination by animalistic Negroes, Islamic radicals are defending Islam from heathens, the Crusaders were defending the Holy Land, from Moslems, and on and on and on throughout history. Not just just individuals can be mentally ill, but entire nations or cultures.
Quick checklist of "evil acts: * eating meat * birth control * not fighting for your country * women not covering themselves properly * spare the rod and spoil the child * divorce * using drugs * using medicine (Christian Scientists) * homosexuality * any sex (Shakers, priests, nuns, etc.)
And so on. There are very few acts that someone, somewhere doesn't consider "bad" that some other group somewhere doesn't consider "good".
So what is the source of "bad" acts? Sometimes it's what your peers tell you is good to do (burn the witch!). Sometimes it's the voices in your head. Sometimes it's ignorance. Sometimes it's a mix of several sources.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 19, 2018 13:19:22 GMT -5
That's the real problem - people virtually never do "bad" things. They almost always believe that what they do is is "good" and even necessary. Nazis were defending Western civilization from Jews and communists, Stalin was defending the common man from capitalist exploiters, the KKK was (is) defending superior white culture from contamination by animalistic Negroes, Islamic radicals are defending Islam from heathens, the Crusaders were defending the Holy Land, from Moslems, and on and on and on throughout history. Not just just individuals can be mentally ill, but entire nations or cultures. Quick checklist of "evil acts: * eating meat * birth control * not fighting for your country * women not covering themselves properly * spare the rod and spoil the child * divorce * using drugs * using medicine (Christian Scientists) * homosexuality * any sex (Shakers, priests, nuns, etc.) And so on. There are very few acts that someone, somewhere doesn't consider "bad" that some other group somewhere doesn't consider "good". So what is the source of "bad" acts? Sometimes it's what your peers tell you is good to do (burn the witch!). Sometimes it's the voices in your head. Sometimes it's ignorance. Sometimes it's a mix of several sources.
Fred, all of the examples you give come from cultural or religious injunctions. Which only goes to prove the point that ideologies cause much of the evil in the world.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 14:13:04 GMT -5
What about Free Will? How does that contribute to evil acts?
As far as what M. Scott Peck (he's a psychiatrist) thinks about a whole country going Nazi, he hasn't said anything about that yet. He so far as been focusing on individuals that were his patients. However I see in subsequent chapters that he might be covering that. I'll comment when I come to that. But, you know, I don't believe you can say that the entire country went evil. And remember that there was fear involved. But, as I said, as far as what Dr. Peck thought about that, it will have to wait for now.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 19, 2018 15:02:31 GMT -5
What about Free Will? How does that contribute to evil acts? As far as what M. Scott Peck (he's a psychiatrist) thinks about a whole country going Nazi, he hasn't said anything about that yet. He so far as been focusing on individuals that were his patients. However I see in subsequent chapters that he might be covering that. I'll comment when I come to that. But, you know, I don't believe you can say that the entire country went evil. And remember that there was fear involved. But, as I said, as far as what Dr. Peck thought about that, it will have to wait for now.
Ultimately, people are responsible for choosing the principles they live by. Once those principles are chosen, however, they can logically point us down a particular road. For example, a logical conclusion of saying that a particular group of scapegoats is evil is to kill all the evil scapegoats. That led to the death camps of Germany and the Gulag of the Soviet Union.
This is why we have to keep checking our own ideologies, just in case.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 15:27:01 GMT -5
I think maybe you should define what you mean by "ideologies". Because this is what you wrote:
Maybe you mean certain ideologies? What group of people live without ideologies?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 19, 2018 18:38:11 GMT -5
I think maybe you should define what you mean by "ideologies". Because this is what you wrote: Maybe you mean certain ideologies? What group of people live without ideologies?
I did not mean that every ideology causes evil. As far as I know, no people live without an ideology. That includes primitive tribes.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 19, 2018 19:07:57 GMT -5
To me, ideologues are people who consider their views to be absolutely and unquestionably true. People who keep questioning their views are not following or believing in an ideology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 21:32:46 GMT -5
To me, ideologues are people who consider their views to be absolutely and unquestionably true. People who keep questioning their views are not following or believing in an ideology. What word would you use instead of ideology, Raybar? Is the word really negative? i·de·ol·o·gy ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/Submit noun 1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. "the ideology of republicanism" synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More 2. archaic the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 20, 2018 0:22:51 GMT -5
Here's definition #1 of ideology from my old Random House Webster's College Dictionary "The body of doctrine or thought that guides an individual, social movement, institution, or group." And an ideologue is defined on the same page as "A zealous advocate or adherent of an ideology."
The word "doctrine" here is more what I think of as ideology than "a system of ideas and ideals" from your definition. A system of ideas can be discussed and modified. Doctrine tends to be fixed (dare I say sacred?) and defended zealously by its advocates.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 20, 2018 8:04:51 GMT -5
Lily - "Free will" is another one of those endlessly debated subject. To me, it was initially invented by Christian theologians to explain why God allows people to do things that put them in eternal hell. They have choice. Obey God or die. If God really wanted everyone to do what he says, he could force them to do that. But since they don't obey, there had to be an explanation of why. Of course, it's never clear why it "pleased" God to set up his world in such a way that most people end up in hell.
As individuals, we all have many pressures from family, friends, society and so on to do certain things. If we deviate too far from our herd rules, we are banished or punished. So in one sense, if a guy with a gun jumps out of an alley and demands your money, you have a "free will" choice. You can obey the outside pressure (man with a gun) or you can choose your own path of free will (refuse and die). If you give the guy your money and he's caught, he can claim that you gave him the money "of your own free will", and he would be correct. You had a choice. 8->
In other words, "free will" choices are almost always influenced by outside pressure. You may have complete free will when you decide what shoes to wear today, but you may have no free will if you decide to go to the mall naked.
The main difference between us and mentally ill folk is that many of their pressures are internal and cause them to violate herd rules for no good reason. There are many valid reasons to commit suicide, but because the Martians whispering in your ear told you to do it is not one. As a culture, we accept that many people talk to their gods and they hear the voices of their gods in their heads. But there's no realistic way to differentiate that behavior from mental illness. The same behavior that gets one person locked in an institution gets another one to becocme head of a TV church making millions of dollars. All depends on what the voices told them to do. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 20, 2018 21:07:45 GMT -5
Here's definition #1 of ideology from my old Random House Webster's College Dictionary "The body of doctrine or thought that guides an individual, social movement, institution, or group." And an ideologue is defined on the same page as "A zealous advocate or adherent of an ideology." The word "doctrine" here is more what I think of as ideology than "a system of ideas and ideals" from your definition. A system of ideas can be discussed and modified. Doctrine tends to be fixed (dare I say sacred?) and defended zealously by its advocates.
Ray, everyone needs general principles in order to guide their life. Becoming an ideologue is misuse of these general principles. Since people are fallible, they always have to be ready to change what they believe when new information becomes available. That doesn't mean it will happen easily.
Nazi and Communist ideologies made it easy for members of these groups to commit mass murder. Faulty ideologies have probably been responsible for more deaths than all of the serial killers in history.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 20, 2018 21:49:11 GMT -5
Yes, Bob. I know and agree.
I just don't care for the word ideology because I have met too many ideologues over the years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 8:25:16 GMT -5
The meaning of the word "ideology" in practice, summed up in two sentences:
"Ideology is what other people believe in when they disagree with me. What I believe in is Objective Truth."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 11:20:24 GMT -5
As for the source of "bad acts", I think that question is too broad to be answerable in any productive way. Like, what "bad acts" are we talking about here? Jaywalking? Theft? Assault? Police violence? "Detention" centers? Genocide?
I feel that for each of these, the answer will be very different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 12:30:01 GMT -5
All I can say now (and I don't have time for more at the moment), if you can figure out that someone is doing "bad" things without being sorry for it, or pretending to be sorry for something but shows no conscience, RUN! I don't care what you call it, evil or something else. And that's really what my topic is mainly about. I think one would eventually figure out the difference.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 21, 2018 14:26:35 GMT -5
The sociopaths I worked with in my nursing days were very, very good at social interaction. They loved to manipulate people. Some sociopaths mange to become rich by working in sales, politics, or religion. No conscience, good at manipulation - perfect job skills. Although most become overconfident and keep pushing boundaries until they crash. For them, it's the fun of the action that motivates them, not the success or money. Indeed scary, but difficult to spot. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 21, 2018 22:29:26 GMT -5
The meaning of the word "ideology" in practice, summed up in two sentences:
"Ideology is what other people believe in when they disagree with me. What I believe in is Objective Truth." Very well. Let's substitute "World View" for "ideology."
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 21, 2018 22:33:50 GMT -5
The sociopaths I worked with in my nursing days were very, very good at social interaction. They loved to manipulate people. Some sociopaths mange to become rich by working in sales, politics, or religion. No conscience, good at manipulation - perfect job skills. Although most become overconfident and keep pushing boundaries until they crash. For them, it's the fun of the action that motivates them, not the success or money. Indeed scary, but difficult to spot. 8-<
One test for sociopaths is to have them play a game where the odds of loosing keep increasing. "Normal" people will give up when they start to loose. Sociopaths keep going until the end.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 22, 2018 9:36:00 GMT -5
If sociopaths didn't have this self-destructive behavior, they'd rule the world. Or maybe they do, anyway. LOL
|
|