[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 34 KB, 499x318, pidars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10837561 No.10837561 [Reply] [Original]

well /lit/?

>> No.10837579

Good and evil are irrelevant, archaic concepts.

>> No.10837582

>>10837561
Machiavelli. Though I wish I wasn't.

>> No.10837586

>humans follow some sort of distribution between people without empathy and those who are almost entirely altruistic, with most people in the middle, having empathy for those they know, and a limited amount for strangers, and very little to none for enemies

>> No.10837605

>>10837561
just watch how apes behave

>> No.10837645

>>10837586
>having empathy for those they know, and a limited amount for strangers
That is selfishness, yes

>> No.10837653

>>10837645
only if you're being pedantic

>> No.10837654
File: 20 KB, 360x235, 360_solzhenitsyn_0804.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10837654

>>10837561
>Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

>> No.10837677

>>10837653
Far from. If you only care for those dear to you, it's clearly because of selfishness.

>> No.10837680

>>10837677
the word selfish usually means people who only care for themselves, you are redefining it to mean people who care for those near them as well

>> No.10837684

>>10837677
>Caring about strangers
Thats being dumb. Empathy was a mistake.

>> No.10837688

>>10837680
Why would you care more for someone near you than a stranger if not for selfishness?

>> No.10837690

>>10837561
It's easy to confirm your biases when they're framed in words that only mean whatever you want them to mean when you use them. Welcome to the social sciences. People are naturally whatever their genes predispose them to be and that includes all of the competing urges and impulses that make them up, and the competing developmental trajectories of those urges' physiological underpinnings. Nature and nurture always coexist and separating one from the other always depends upon some framing fallacy.
Social scientists are bullshit artists.

>> No.10837699

>>10837654
gradually it was disclosed to me that writing lies and bullshit could help me accumulate that sweet sweet cia money

>> No.10837700

Rousseau desu

>> No.10837707

>>10837677
>you only care for those dear to you
this is a tautology

also stretching the definition of selfishness like that makes the concept useless

>> No.10837708

>>10837688
personally I follow the sociobiological reasoning, which means that it is technically selfishness(of the gene not you though), but you're missing the point here.

The word 'selfish' refers to a person who doesn't care about other people very much. Somebody who devotes themselves to their family, no amtter the ultimate reasons behind this, is not selfish by the common meaning of the word. you're just fucking with definitions here, ie. being pedantic.

>> No.10837734

>>10837561
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is retarded

>> No.10837738

>>10837707
You can generally consider someone abominable and still care for them.

Can you claim to be truly empathic if you're empathic only to a certain group of people? Now, why would you restrict this empathy? I'm asking you this.
>>10837708
Someone who is selfish is better explained as someone who is driven by personal interest. You can compare it to greed.
>Somebody who devotes themselves to their family, no amtter the ultimate reasons behind this, is not selfish by the common meaning of the word
Then this "common meaning" is absolutely useless in the discussion of human nature, you monkey

>> No.10837750

>>10837738
we have to differentiate between people who feel empathy for their relatives and friends, and people who don't. This is both the subjective feeling of empathy, and actual actions taken for their benefit. Whether both of these can be classed within a larger set that could be called selfish is immaterial.

We use the word selfish for this distinction, you are being extremely autistic

>> No.10837755

>>10837750
Mate, what are you even doing in a thread discussing human nature if everything is "hurrr pedantic and autistic"? Don't you have a Peterson thread to go to?

>> No.10837759

>>10837750
if you don’t feel empathy for strangers then you don’t have empathy. empathy does not limit itself because of social ties. we would say a society where foreigners are mistreated and neglected is apathetic. one where they’re care for and respected is empathetic. for instance danes are empathetic, chinese are apathetic. the US is empathetic relative to the apathy of Botswana

>> No.10837760

>>10837755
The words mean different things fuckface, saying that altruistic behavior is ultimately selfish gene behavior is not the same as saying that an individual is selfish.

How can you not grasp this

>> No.10837763

>>10837760
If you only feel empathy towards your family or tribe, then that is obviously just bioliogical behaviour and not true empathy.

>> No.10837774

>>10837759
So there is a spectrum of being selfish and selfless, which I said in my very first post. You're still trying to redefine the word selfish when it already has a meaning that everyone uses it for.

What word do you want to use to describe someone who doesn't give a shit about their family and just furthers their own interests, as opposed to a mother who spends all her time working for her children.

>> No.10837777

>>10837763
>obviously just bioliogical behaviour and not true empathy.
I'm going to just abandon the thread now, have fun taking about magical concepts

>> No.10837780

>>10837777
>maternal instincts are magical concepts
You're a damn retard
>>10837774
So a grown man suddenly caring for his old, dying father after he wins the lottery is suddenly empathic? Even if he just does it for the money?

>> No.10837797

>>10837780
you're functionally illiterate. Maternal instincts are obviously 'biological behavior'.

And clearly that is not empathic, because he is not feeling empathy, he is being calculating; my definition involved both action and feeling. I specifically used the example of a mother who cares about her children and devotes herself to them.

>> No.10837802

>>10837797
>>10837797
Then your definition
>Somebody who devotes themselves to their family, no amtter the ultimate reasons behind this, is not selfish by the common meaning of the word
Is useless, just as I told you.

>> No.10837804

>>10837699
Any sources on this? People on this board are always throwing this accusation around but I can't find documentation anywhere else.

>> No.10837808

>>10837802
When I said 'no matter the ultimate reasons' I was referring to the ideas of empathy having evolved for reciprocal altruism or kin selection, I was not talking about ruthlessly gaming somebody by pretending to care about them.

you are purposely trying not to understand the distinciton to uphold your retarded view of the word 'selfish'

>> No.10837809

>>10837561
We are the product of billions of years of genes replicating in different combinations forming more or less optimal organisms for their time and place. Selective pressures favor selfishness and opportunism. Sometimes selective pressures favor communities and a certain amount of altruism. What's even the debate here? Good and evil only relatively and loosely define each other. You might as well ask if humans are naturally hooplah or foopajoo.

>> No.10837814

>>10837561
Rosseaus seems a bit dumbed down. If everyone is naturally good then why is society evil?

>> No.10837816

>>10837809
*SOMETIMES selective pressures favor selfishness and opportunism. My bad.

>> No.10837828

>>10837808
I don't give a rat's ass about my so-called "own definition", but if we're trying to discuss human nature, we need to pinpoint the true motivation behind actions.

>> No.10837846

>>10837809
Why not sink into debauchery? Nothing really matters. We're just molecules

>> No.10837867

If society corrupts people than wouldnt that mean people within the society were inherently evil if it causes people to be corrupted?

>> No.10837871
File: 48 KB, 474x528, 880.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10837871

>>10837579

>> No.10837878

>>10837846
I don't care what you do. Do whatever you want. If i end up objecting it won't be out of any moral conviction, it will just be out of what I will and won't let you do for my own reasons.

>> No.10837882

>>10837867
Can you not mix two pure things and get an impure mixture?

>> No.10837885

>>10837878
*kills you*
sorry... i don't care much for your lame ideas, kiddo

>> No.10837892

>>10837885
your molecular arrangement lacks the balls to kill anyone tbqh

>> No.10837904

>>10837885
I don't have to have definitions of right and wrong to take part in the social contract modern societies have that says we like to punish killers and discourage that inconvenient behavior, just the same as I don't need to have definitions of right and wrong in order to decide I don't want to die and would kill to keep that from happening.

>> No.10837915

>>10837904
So you happily break laws and do anything you want as long as you don't fear repercussions?

>> No.10837984

>>10837915
Nobody said that either kid. I follow and agree with most laws because behaving that way makes life the way I'm comfortable with it being and if I want to uphold that social contract, or law, that says we discourage certain behaviors I don't like, I accept that the pumishments would apply to me too. I don't need moral convictions like right and wrong to know I don't like killing because that's just not effective or sustainable problem solving. I don't rape because there's no replacement for the girl actually WANTING me. I don't steal because i don't want to be stolen from, and I would kill anyone who tried to kill me, because fuck him. Humans could do something interesting like learning skills and exploring space. We've got endless books and porn and sports and netflix and he can't find a single use of his time better than killing me. This doesn't require morals. It requires personal priorities and a general knowledge that working together can make things sustainable and easier. I like the internet, so i'd rather society not descend into anarchy. Got it?

>> No.10838028

>>10837561
I'll pick the Italian over the French man

>> No.10838030

Goodness and evilness follow a gaussian distribution in the human population.

>> No.10838037

>>10837984
>kid
embarassing
>i don’t need to have a moral compass to decide what’s inconvenient
idiot

>> No.10838052

>>10837561
Humans want to be good but they're often in denial about what it means to be good, because being good is hard.

>> No.10838111

>>10837561
Where do those quotes come from?

>> No.10838139

>>10837804
There isn’t any, he’s just an assmad red like the rest, pissed off that someone dare write about the reality of communism.

>> No.10838167

>>10837984
>This doesn't require morals. It requires personal priorities and a general knowledge that working together can make things sustainable and easier.

Do you even think about the things you're bullshitting about? Are you naive enough to think that people will accept the social contract based on logical arguments? Or that people even want comfort or sustainability?

Besides, without morality, there is no such thing as a social contract. How can you truly believe that there is no morality, but also that everything is just based on rational self interest? Where do people get their ideas on right and wrong, in what their interests are? Because if we aren't drawing on the same principles (morality), then the social contract should be unintelligible in moral and rational terms to almost everybody.

It's pretty clear that you obey the social contract out of fear of becoming uncomfortable, because your understanding of society is on par with someone who lives in a basement and only communicates to people through the internet and ordering pizza.

>> No.10838179

>>10837699
CIA supported USSR secretly, dummy

>> No.10838210

>>10838111
I'm interested as well. I would fully believe the left is from Rousseau, because that quote is from The Social Contract.

Machiavelli's quote on the other hand... I would never attribute to him. I recall him being of a rather good character in the Prince, exhorting the good ways to do things and cautioning against the evil.

>> No.10838217

>>10837561
>Rousseau
Wrong pretty much by default.

>> No.10838245

>>10838167
Who said anything about anyone else accepting a moral contract? Generally people do. Those that don't are punished. I'm generally okay with that. Wherein exactly is the bullshit?

I'm not denying that people's ideas of what is desirable, or how their priorities will be structured, are based off of value judgements. I didn't claim they were rational. I didn't claim mine were any semvlance of "correct". I said that they did not have to be rooted in a definition of right and wrong. You're arguing with a whole lot of things that weren't said, anon.

There can be plenty of social contracts without morality. Like you said I prefer not to be murdered. I imagine you feel the same. We don't have to believe in souls or god or divine punishment or even legal punishment for me to go "hey i only need this much food and you only need that much food, wanna just call it a day and go our separate ways?" I didn't say that was guaranteed to work out. That's why i'd probably have a backup plan because i've experienced enough of life to know some people simply want to watch you suffer. And I dislike those people because they make life difficult for me. That does not mean I have to have absolute beliefs in what is right and wrong and how values "should" be shaped.

Calm down. Read carefully.

>> No.10838262

>>10838167
If your whole argument is that value judgements are necessary you waste your breath because i'm only saying that their necessity doesn't make them correct.

>> No.10838271

>>10837561
Hegel

>> No.10838322

>>10838245
>Generally people do
Wow, that's some coincidence isn't it? I mean in a world without morality, it's pretty amazing that people generally accept some fundamentals.

>I'm not... I didn't...
Yeah, ok, so what, you want to replace good and evil with like and dislike? Is that substantially different from what most people call good and evil? I mean besides the fact that you think you can argue your side without having to base it in anything?

>More on social contracts without morality
But where do they come from? How can people generally agree on something that's not based in anything? And if people generally agree on these fundamentals, how is that not what people are talking about when they talk about morality?

>> No.10838326

>>10837579
Found the brainlet.

>> No.10838334

>>10837814
God corrupted man

>> No.10838359

>>10837579
Enjoy hell.

>> No.10838362
File: 186 KB, 1416x1062, 1517851874498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10838362

To continue existing you necessarily have to harm another existing agent. Humans are then evil just by virtue of being.

>> No.10838377

>The question has been raised, What two men would do, who lived a solitary life in the wilds and met each other for the first time. Hobbes, Pufendorf, and Rousseau have given different answers. Pufendorf believed that they would approach each other as friends; Hobbes, on the contrary, as enemies; Rousseau, that they would pass each other by In silence. All three are both right and wrong. This is just a case in which the incalculable difference that there is in innate moral disposition between one individual and another would make its appearance. The difference is so strong that the question here raised might be regarded as the standard and measure of it. For there are men in whom the sight of another man at once rouses a feeling of enmity, since their inmost nature exclaims at once: That is not me! There are, others in whom the sight awakens immediate sympathy; their inmost nature says: That is me over again! Between the two there are countless degrees. That in this most important matter we are so totally different is a great problem, nay, a mystery.

as always, schopey nails it.

>> No.10838402

>>10837561
The question of whether humans are by default selfish, and brutish, until hammered into being empathetic, or they are naturally empathetic, and only corrupted by being brought up in an awful system inherently relies on the false assumption that before the dawn of civilization, every man was out for himself. That's simply not true, man is a naturally social animal, and we've lived in tribes since before we were humans, and anthropology has shown us that no two tribal societies are alike in this regard. The question is unanswerable, because it's built on false premises.

>> No.10838416

>>10838217
Off yourself. Rousseau was a hell of a man, knew aspects about reality that you will never contemplate.

>never read The Social Contract
It's basically just The Prince V2, with all the dad-tier advice in there that you love.

He even has a section where he distinguishes Tyrants from Despots, saying it's possible to be a benevolent tyrant, and impossible to be a benevolent despot.

>> No.10838422

>>10838416
>It's basically just The Prince V2,
It is literally nothing like the Prince. The Prince is Machievalli speaking from experience and being logical about power relations, the Social Contract is Rousseau making shit up completely at random

>> No.10838424

>>10838322
>It's amazing people accept some fundamentals.
Agreeing to behave a certain way doesn't make that way correct. Sharing value judgements does not make them the correct ones.

>is that substantially different.
Yes. It is. Because agreeing on value judgements does not make them correct.

>argue your side without having to base it in anything.
It's morality that has yet to be based in anything other than people's insistance. Are you not grasping the distinction between value judgements and morals? Because value judgements, or the objects of people's priorities, like sex, knowledge, etc, can often come from moral convictions, but do not need to. Because they can come from just enjoyment. I'm not sure what part of this you find arguable. You seem again to be arguing with a lot of things you think i'm implying, rather than the actual content of what i've said.

>how can people agree on anything that isnt based in anything?
I assume you mean how can people recognize a mutual desire to live, anf a productive way to behave to that end, without basing this in value judgements? They can't. You are right that it requires value judgements. But it doea not require morality, or any such convictions that there is a correct way to shape one's values.

>> No.10838427
File: 4 KB, 211x239, 1507979717593.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10838427

>>10837561
>Humans are good by nature
>Has numerous affairs
>Refuses to raise his bastards
Lmao

>> No.10838429

>>10838402
>That's simply not true, man is a naturally social animal, and we've lived in tribes since before we were humans, and anthropology has shown us that no two tribal societies are alike in this regard.
I guess you missed the point of this conversation if you are comparing society to human nature?

>> No.10838454

>>10838422
>The Prince is Machievalli speaking from experience and being logical about power relations

Did we even read the same book?

The only reason I said The Social Contract is similar to The Prince is because both of them use historical anecdotes to prove political points. That there are immutable truths.

They have synergistic points (i.e. they both make the same points about the means justifying the ends sometimes, which is what the 'benevolent tyrant' is all about)

>> No.10838460

>>10838454
>>10838422
To clarify, I'm saying you are correct, that is exactly what the Prince is.

But you are foolish and incorrect if you think that isn't also EXACTLY what The Social Contract is.

>> No.10838466

>>10838460
It's possible I'm foolish and incorrect

>> No.10838540

>>10838326
shut up christian

>> No.10838587

>>10838424
My question is, how is it possible that people who are basing their value judgements on a basically limitless selection of arbitrary things possibly come to agree on a social contract by anything other than impossible odds? Do you see the world we ended up in as a fantastic coincidence?

I get your point, that just because people agree on something doesn't make it "right." What i don't get is, if it isn't based on something more fundamental, which is what people are talking about when they talk about morality, then what do you, personally, think it's based on? Nothing? "Let's just be comfortable and sustainable, Bros"? Because if so, we're back to your naivety about people.

>> No.10838598

>>10837561
>man = good
>man + man = bad
>good + good = bad
Rousseau is a moron of the highest order, you can prove it mathematically.

>> No.10838601

>>10837579
>someone who thinks this posts on the literature board

>> No.10838616

The usage of good and bad in OP's picture isn't justified. Our actions are determined by our priorities, to say good and bad reduces it to something a child would understand. Do they mean evil as in, enjoys pleasure from hurting others? Or evil as in, doesn't do the right thing? There's a huge difference between someone who won't help you because they want to see you suffer, and someone who won't help you because that would take up too much of their time, even if they have the resources to do it.

>>10838427
That wasn't him though, that was society fampai.

>> No.10838641

>>10838587
With a genetic variability of ~0.1 percent, I imagine people are predisposed to have a lot of wants and needs in common. It's not arbitrary at all. We all have a mutual desire not to be killed because that is the single most successful trait in the history of evolution. We all hate being stolen from, not because there is some substance to "right" and "wrong" but because we like our stuff. You act like we all got together one day and it was a crazy coincidence we agreed on so much and you have the arrogance to call other people naive about people. Life has always been a competition over resources and reproduction and comfort. There have always been more and less optimal ways suited to the place and times they were in. People only recently started basing their preferences on assumptions about a correct way to shape ones values and behave. It happened gradually through millennia of debate and endoctrination and repetition of circular reasoning and fear of sky people and it has never had any basis in reality because repetition, even for millennia, does not make things true.

>> No.10838654

>>10838616
>That wasn't him though, that was society fampai.
Pretty sure he was acting on behalf of himself and not as part of some form of external influence on him pressuring him into an action

>> No.10838665

falso dichotomy only a brainlet would believe this
each side has their points, but psychology research slightly points towards the left guy, reciprocal altruism is biological, also in situations where it doesn't work we can nudge people, read richard thaler

>> No.10838708
File: 76 KB, 604x453, 1518015866247.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10838708

>>10837579
you are inhuman

>> No.10838782

>>10838654
Please don't.

>> No.10838794

>>10838641
Ok, so yes, naivety is the problem here.
>Mutual desire not to be killed
But what happens when someone wants to kill?
>We all hate being stolen from
Yes, but people want to steal from others, and very often do. It's like you're missing the other half of human experience.
>Morality is just sky people
Some children believe that, but most people just believe morality is real.
>Values and morality are recent inventions
Seriously?
>Everybody's beliefs are based on indoctrination and circular reasoning that somehow people have upheld and enforced all through human history, motivated by... genetics or something.
Great, that just brings me back to my original question of where all of this stuff originally came from and why do people keep repeating it. How do beliefs emerge from genetics or biological similarity? If things are just optimally suiting the times, and people don't base their beliefs on anything deeper, why have we tended toward basically the same things over and over again?

>> No.10838865

>>10838794
>what happens when somebody wants to kill?
They probably kill someone. What does that have to do with anything I said?

>missing the other half of the human experience.
I'm aware that not everyone shares the same ideals and behaviors. What does that have to do with anything I said?

>Morality is real
Sure. And it's based in value judgements that have no basis in reality other than what has been productive at a time and place or repeated by enough people. That does not make any version of morality "correct"

>seriously?
Yes. Human history is incredibly short in the scale of evolution. Most value judgements have not been made under assumptions of correctness, just out of subjective preference.

>how do beliefs emerge from genetics?
The same way all mental activity did. Then once we became capable of experiencing confirmation bias and killing off entire continents who didn't share our values, it became very easy tp surround yourself with people who share your opinions. Especially when it serves their needs which are essentially the same as yours.

>why have we tended toward the same thongs over and over again?
Because we're dealing with many of the same philosophical issues and have many of the same options regarding how to deal with them. Throughout history and before, people like you have envoked abstract concepts like gods and morals and the collective unconscious and insisted that these ideas don't need to endure scrutiny to be good, you just have to really like them and that makes them real.

>> No.10838867

>Human nature
LMAO

>> No.10838879

Both touch the truth. The broad nature of man cannot be summed in so short a statement.

>> No.10838894

>>10838794
Familiarize yourself with the concept of confirmation bias and circular reasoning. Then start with the greeks. The fact is that western thought is the history of men who tried to derive morality from fantasies that failed to endure scrutiny. That doesn't mean that society "should" have no morals either. I'm not selling you a correct way to behave, only pointing out that throughout history all attempts at doing so have been rooted in circular reasoning and confirmation bias. No matter how hard you insist that somehow people keeping on trying must make them right somehow, you'd be grasping at straws to take away the nagging existential angst and moral uncertainty we all face. There's no correct way to behave. Sorry. There's just our attempts as minimizing unproductive behavior and defining "productivity" either by majority vote or the whims of a dictator. Welcome to adulthood.

>> No.10838956

>>10838894
No. It's not a history of fantasies that didn't endure scrutiny. It's a history where vastly different people and cultures in different places and times found different ways to say essentially the same things. Criticisms were fundamentally based on the same reasoning processes, which were also inspired by morality. If everything just comes down to preference, consensus is impossible.

The only one saying things are true because they really want them to be is you. I know you're not saying you're correct, your whole point is that there's no such thing as correct, only what people want. But you're just asserting that every philosopher and theologian and person in history has had no better arguments than you, nothing more profound to say than you. You're assuming that nothing underpins their thoughts, because nothing underpins yours. You're just describing yourself and projecting it onto other people. But hey, what does it matter anyways right? That's just your preference.

>> No.10838988

>>10837871
Holy fucking kek. How didn't i see that posted before?

>> No.10839006

>>10838956
Genuinely, that last bit is interesting and I will think on it.

But,
>if everything is preference consensus is impossible
Peoples preferences are often similar. Yet, consensus is still an illusive bitch.

>essentially the same things.
You over-emphasize the similarities and ignore the vast differences hoping that this means that the morals they refer to have some substance beyond preference but you haven't said anything about the actual nature of said substance. Are you referring to god? Define right and wrong. That's all i'm saying. Who's right and wrong?

>true because I want them to be.
What? Provide me some basis in reality for moral truth, rather than just repeating that if other people agree with you they must be right. I'm pointing at an absence of evidence and you're insisting that's not evidence of absence. Fine. I conceded that.but that still does not leave us with morals based in anything other that repetition and spiritual assumption.

>asserting that every other philosopher and theologian has no better arguments than me and nothing more profound to say than I have.
That's horse shit and you know it.

>assuming nothing underpins their thoughts.
Do you know of any basis for morality that isn't rooted in spiritual or metaphysical assumptions or at least in pragmatic application of majority (but not absolute) value judgements?

>that's just your preference.
The difference is that i define my terms, cite my sources, and open myself to a dialogue. Good ideas are such because they ensure scrutiny. Not because we have faith in them, not because we repeat them louder, not because we kill off anyone who disagrees, and not because we collect people who agree with us. If you can think of a basis for morality that isn't rooted in these things, i'll listen. But until then, i'm not going to claim to have answers to what is morally right and wrong and how ones values should be shaped any more than ill claim to have talked to god.

>> No.10839087
File: 2.51 MB, 1290x1260, vehk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10839087

Humans are innately disposed to both good and evil, and the events in their lives draw out and solidify one or the other in different sets of circumstances. Failing to acknowledge the radical impacts of environmental factors on developmental trajectory reflects a serious lack of scientific literacy. There is an extended literature on the effects of different events and circumstances (e.g., adverse childhood experiences, different parenting styles, exposure to environmental toxins such as lead, education and lack of it, proper and improper nutrition, etc.) on the manner in which the brain develops and genes are expressed. This even extends to prenatal development, from the anxiety levels of the mother to whether or not the mother engages in substance use.

I enjoy taking Hobbes and Rousseau as examples of different developmental outcomes. Hobbes, having grown up in wartime, evaluates humans as innately evil and in need of governance because he has been biologically conditioned to stress, he is disposed to think as though he is existing in a state of war even when he has not. Rousseau had a pleasant childhood and as such holds positive expectations of other persons. Neither of them are wrong; the goodness or badness of a person is entirely contingent on environmental factors influencing development and producing different developmental trajectories. Goodness and badness are probabilistic, influenced by myriad factors both genetic and environmental which can either detract from or build upon one another.

The implication of this outlook is that environmental factors which encourage good traits should be made present for as many developing persons as possible. If a person has "bad genetics," if such a thing really exists, these may be dissuaded by particularly good environmental factors (and vice versa). Effectively determining which environmental factors produce positive outcomes and which do not is difficult, particularly so given the difficulty of evaluating what outcomes should be construed as positive, but it is possible. Personally, I would consider a society in which individuals experience relative wellbeing, reach their greatest potential intellectual and practical ability, and feel warmth for other persons is ideal. But clearly positive regard for other persons is not ideal for an individual surviving war — in such a situation, it is most advantageous for the individual, as an organism, to be suspicious of others.

>> No.10839121

>>10839006
>Provide some basis in reality for moral truth
>Not rooted in spiritual or metaphysical assumptions
I think morality has to be metaphysical, otherwise I'd be concerned with the things you're concerned with.

>Good ideas are such because they endure scrutiny, not because we have faith in them, etc...
But what's the end of scrutiny? How do you use it and why do you believe it works if you don't believe in metaphysics? Is it just a wish, a hope, a preference? Because then I again don't understand how anybody agrees on anything. I wouldn't be able to understand how anyone knows what they themselves believe.

I'm not arguing for any particular form of morality, but I am arguing that the amount of overlap in beliefs and aspirations of a majority of people in history is evidence that there is something deeper. It's not that people yelled louder and killed off dissenters, it's that thoughtful people used the scrutiny you're talking about and found things in common. Sure maybe it's all a lie, but so possibly is everything we think we see and touch. It wouldn't matter that pretty much everybody in history agrees that the sun and moon exist and they'd seen them, because maybe it's a lie.

Maybe i am wrong and people's ideas have far less in common than I think. But if it's preference and a disregard for scrutiny? The amount of overlap is astounding.

>> No.10839136

>>10839087
Rousseau believes you are at war with one another under the social contract as well.

There are many parallels to Hobbes and Rousseau, and he is not the pacifist you think him to be, just like Machiavelli is not the evil demon people think he is.

Hobbes is great though, beautiful work of logic Leviathan, I still utilize aspects of it whenever I think about political relations.

>> No.10839198

Nature is good and civilisation is evil

>> No.10839216

>>10838028
broke: philosopy philosophy
woke: racial philosophy

>> No.10839248

>>10839121
>has to be metaphysical
Then it also has to be unfalsifiable and being certain of it is still going to be dependent on circular reasoning. Which is what I said an hour ago which you've been wasting my time about ever since.

>is it just a wish? Hope? Preference?
What? It's structuring an understanding of the world based on deductive reasoning rather than what we feel or wish or hope. If you have some other special standards of what makes a good idea, other than it's ability to endure scrutiny, I promise you've got an engine of bullshit.

>something deeper
You keep saying this but giving no examples as to what it could be. Innate knowledge of the correct way to shape values and behave? No. Just neurophysiological habits picked up through natural selection.

There are many reoccurring themes in the history of philosophical debate, and that isn't because somewhere in them is a correct morality. Or a correct lack thereof either. It's simply that people are terrified of their existential uncertainty.

>> No.10839255

>>10839198
There are species of bird that move into others' nests and kill all the other babies to claim the mothers' affections. Sorry to burst your bubble but nature is hostile competition for resources.

>> No.10839277

>>10839255
I have a fairly contrary opinion of "good" to what is considered normal in this civilised hell world

>> No.10839284

>>10837561
Humans are naturally good, but both of them would describe that as evil.

>> No.10839306

>>10839248
Ok, but how do you know scrutiny works? You seem to think it works, but how do you know? What in reality can you show me? Can you give it a basis that isn't metaphysical or spiritual? How can you use it to make decisions about ideas that aren't just your preferences?

>> No.10839326

>>10837561
i'd pick neither but i'd choose machiavelli if you had a gun to my head.

people are friendly but if you're playing poker with them and you suck at bluffing, they're going to take your chips.

>> No.10839334

>>10839306
If we were to come to an agreement that scrutiny didn't work, we would have successfully scrutinized the idea that scrutiny works.

If we're going to make statements about what "is" then they have to be compatible with what else "is". We could find out tomorrow that god created the universe in seven days. Newton's laws are horse shit, and true morality is as the book says. But whatever information we discovered would cast a new light on other things we observe. It would still have to be possible to reconcile this truth with why matter seems to behave as it does and why we've had so much trouble creating or destroying energy. I don't know scrutiny works. Maybe the universe, by nature of what it is, will forever elude understanding and once we think we understand it, it is designed to replace itself with something weirder. But if not their ability to endure sceutiny, and reconcile with other true things, then we have no standard upon which to gauge the usefulness or truthfulness of information and STILL have no business claiming moral certainty.

>> No.10839443

>>10839334
So, it sounds like you get it. You're proving that scrutiny works, even though it doesn't do any of the things you want from morality. It isn't real or physical, you and I just can't imagine anything different. And if we did, we'd be using scrutiny to do so.

Great, now imagine someone saying that scrutiny doesn't work, no matter how much you wish it does. There's nothing there, and no amount of people in history using it and agreeing on it and believing it's real will prove anything. After all, people who used scrutiny ended up believing different things, and quite sincerely.

That's what your argument against morality existing looks like.

I know, you don't feel or comprehend any morality. But hey, some people can't scrutinize either.

>> No.10839473

>>10837561
humans are driven by incentives

>> No.10839533

>>10839443
I didn't say I knew scrutiny worked. I specifically said i didn't, but if not it's ability to endure scrutiny, then we have no basis on which to claim certainty of an idea's validity.

As usual, you are arguing with absurdities that weren't said. You're the one postulating the existence of moral truth. Scrutiny isn't something I have to point to. Scrutiny is the act of me saying "in what way shape or form could moral truth actually have substance or form in any way beyond your assumption of its substance?"
Your idea failing to endure scrutiny is when you say "ionno but it must, you don't know everything"

Now, that does not prove you wrong. It just proves you have no basis upon which to claim you're right at this point.

I'm out. You contrarian little shit.

>> No.10839683

>>10838028
>Rousseau
>French
anon please

>> No.10840034

Well, we must first define what it means to be human, what it means to be evil and what it means to be good.

>> No.10840296

>>10837561
alternatively Mencius / Xunzi

>> No.10840396

>>10837561
No human exists in a vacuum

>> No.10840495

>>10837561
neither. mankind is mostly children incapable of controlling their own actions to a meaningful degree.

>> No.10840504

>>10837645
More like egoitism

>> No.10840510
File: 15 KB, 259x400, 41VBiRcLneL._SY400_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10840510

One could test all theories of state and political ideas according to their anthropology and thereby classify these as to whether they consciously or unconsciously presuppose man to be by nature evil or by nature good. The distinction is to be taken here in a rather summary fashion and not in any specifically moral or ethical sense. The problematic or unproblematic conception of man is decisive for the presupposition of every further political consideration, the answer to the question whether man is a dangerous being or not, a risky or a harmless creature.

Evil may appear as corruption, weakness, cowardice, stupidity, or also as brutality, sensuality, vitality, irrationality, and so on. Goodness may appear in corresponding variations as reasonableness, perfectibility, the capacity of being manipulated, of being taught, peaceful, and so forth. Striking in this context is the political significance of animal fables.

Almost all can be applied to a real political situation: the problem of aggression in the fable of the wolf and the lamb; the question of guilt for the plague in La Fontaine's fable, a guilt which of course falls upon the donkey; justice between states in the fables of animal assemblies; disarmament in Churchill's election speech of October 1928, which depicts how every animal believes that its teeth, claws, horns are only instruments for maintaining peace; the large fish which devour the small ones, etc. This curious analogy can be explained by the direct connection of political anthropology with what the political philosophers of the seventeenth century (Hobbes, Spinoza, Pufendorf) called the state of nature.

In it, states exist among themselves in a condition of continual danger, and their acting subjects are evil for precisely the same reasons as animals who are stirred by their drives (hunger, greediness, fear, jealousy).

>> No.10840519

>>10840510
Man according to Machiavelli is not by nature evil. Some places seem to indicate this…. But what Machiavelli wants to express everywhere is that man, if not checked, has an irresistible inclination to slide from passion to evil: animality, drives, passions are the kernels of human nature—above all love and fear. Machiavelli is inexhaustible in his psychological observations of the play of passions…. From this principal feature of human nature he derives the fundamental law of all political life.

Although liberalism has not radically denied the state, it has, on the other hand, neither advanced a positive theory of state nor on its own discovered how to reform the state, but has attempted only to tie the political to the ethical and to subjugate it to economics. It has produced a doctrine of the separation and balance of powers, i.e., a system of checks and controls of state and government. This cannot be characterized as either a theory of state or a basic political principle.

What remains is the remarkable and, for many, certainly disquieting diagnosis that all genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil, i.e., by no means an unproblematic but a dangerous and dynamic being. This can be easily documented in the works of every specific political thinker. Insofar as they reveal themselves as such they all agree on the idea of a problematic human nature, no matter how distinct they are in rank and prominent in history. It suffices here to cite Machiavelli, Hobbes, Bossuet, Fichte (as soon as he forgets his humanitarian idealism), de Maistre, Donoso Cortés, H. Taine, and Hegel, who, to be sure, at times also shows his double face.

>> No.10840522

>>10840519
Hegel also offers the first polemically political definition of the bourgeois. The bourgeois is an individual who does not want to leave the apolitical riskless private sphere. He rests in the possession of his private property, and under the justification of his possessive individualism he acts as an individual against the totality. He is a man who finds his compensation for his political nullity in the fruits of freedom and enrichment and above all in the total security of its use. Consequently he wants to be spared bravery and exempted from the danger of a violent death.

>> No.10840525

>>10840522
The question is not settled by psychological comments on optimism or pessimism. It follows according to the anarchist method that only individuals who consider man to be evil are evil. Those who consider him to be good, namely the anarchists, are then entitled to some sort of superiority or control over the evil ones. The problem thus begins anew.

One must pay more attention to how very different the anthropological presuppositions are in the various domains of human thought. With methodological necessity an educator will consider man capable of being educated. A jurist of private law starts with the sentence “one who is presumed to be good.” A theologian ceases to be a theologian when he no longer considers man to be sinful or in need of redemption and no longer distinguishes between the chosen and the nonchosen. The moralist presupposes a freedom of choice between good and evil.

Because the sphere of the political is in the final analysis determined by the real possibility of enmity, political conceptions and ideas cannot very well start with an anthropological optimism. This would dissolve the possibility of enmity and, thereby, every specific political consequence.

>> No.10840559

>>10837561
>comparing views held by someone in the 15th and 16th centuries with views held by someone in the 18th century

>haha guys how stupid were those guys in the 1800s like dude they hadn't even been to space like just build a space rocket lmao

Also, comparing a Frenchman's experience to an Italian's -- maybe, and this is likely because the world was so less globalized, both of those views are completely accurate in the context of their respective environments.

>> No.10840564

>>10840559
No they're not you relativist swine, they're talking about human nature. There is no great natural/racial gap between the two.

>> No.10840579

>>10840564
You fool. 'Human nature' is ambiguous and can react in different ways depending on the experience of the subject. Somebody points a rifle at a gentleman, he surrenders; somebody points a rifle at a Zulu, he charges.

>> No.10840612

Humans are just competitive by nature. If it's in their benefit to cooperate and help others, they will. If it's in their benefit to not prejudice others, they will.
The closest to being right here is Machiavelli because to some retards, being competitive = evil

>> No.10840614
File: 81 KB, 728x546, 1515547634588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10840614

>>10839087

The first post in this thread that isn't retarded.

>> No.10840616

>>10840612
*to prejudice others

>> No.10840618
File: 9 KB, 300x168, images (11).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10840618

>>10837561
reminder that Russeau's man (and woman) in the state of nature was an isolated Chad who had almost no contact with other people, just killed stuff with its own hands, fucked anyone he encountered and then just walked away, and even children would just casually walk away from their mothers when they were developed enough to take care of themselves

they were no commie hippies sucking each others' cock and living in a pile of filth, and as soon as people started living together everything went to shit

>> No.10840741

>>10838956
>If everything just comes down to preference, consensus is impossible.
That's your opinion.

>> No.10840746
File: 71 KB, 468x446, 1519589572878.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10840746

>>10837561
>humans are good by nature
>Jean Jacques Rousseau
>the Jean Jacques Rousseau who sired half a dozen children on his maid and knowingly sent them all to die in orphanages with a 10% survival rate
Not exactly my idea of a moral authority.

>> No.10840768

>>10837699
>>>/r/eddit

>> No.10840775

>>10838139
>believing this
>believing Pynchon isn’t actually a CIA psyop too
you people and your inconsistent logic tire me