Right and Wrong?

[Dennis Mahar]

you only have a version of history.
have you gone completely mad?

seeker, hit it with a cold spoon.

[Getoriks]

Obviously one can only have a version of history. That's how it works, Dennis. I don't see your point. Are we to suddenly fall into relativism and claim that no version of history is any better than others, that the Nazis didn't kill Slavs and Jews and others, that the reason the Roman empire fell was because of Godzilla, that the U.S. Constitution was actually written by an Italian hobo in some alley in Venice? Obviously certainty never comes into play in history, but some versions are clearly more accurate than others, and your version of the history of Western philosophy is horribly inaccurate, as well as predictable, for it's the most popular version. Nearly every academic philosopher in the West believes in it. It explains why Western academic philosophy has only produced garbage.

[Orenholt]

Here's a question I had:

If right and wrong are subjective then how can murder always be wrong?
Murder is by it's definition immoral so wouldn't that mean that it is not subjective?
Sure the application of the word murder is subjective but murder itself is not.

[Dennis Mahar]

What I'm saying Getoriks is a Contextualisation of philosophy.

It's an activity of a part of human consciousness called 'intellect' with an infusion of 'emotion'.

It's an Activity.
The point of existence is Activity.


Analysing philosophy discloses modes or streams.
Some philosophers enrol in the imagination of Ideal Forms like God, Devil, Santa Claus, woman, masculine.
Ideal Forms lead to religion, religious fervour, intransigence.
That is called subjective or Idealist.

Some philosophers enrol in the Democratis view, 'the world is made of atoms' which leads to science.
That is called objective or Materialist.

Some philosophers generate both.

Get rid of object/subject.

Get rid of all the Content for a minute and see the Context. (activity).

dhamma is action and consequences.
the philosophy of activity 'get's it'.

dependent arising,
this ceases, that ceases,
this arises, that arises.
the play of causality.

consciousness is an act.

consciousness depends and is therefore transformable.

when consciousness conceives of an electron it is assumed electrons always existed.

[Dennis Mahar]

If right and wrong are subjective then how can murder always be wrong?
Murder is by it's definition immoral so wouldn't that mean that it is not subjective?
Sure the application of the word murder is subjective but murder itself is not.

what gives rise to murder?
causes/conditions.
greed?
envy?
self-preservation?
peer/herd pressure?

[Dan Rowden]

Here's a question I had:

If right and wrong are subjective then how can murder always be wrong?
Murder is by it's definition immoral so wouldn't that mean that it is not subjective?
Sure the application of the word murder is subjective but murder itself is not.

So, that was altogether rhetorical, then?

[Getoriks]

Dennis, what you're saying about stepping outside of particular modes of philosophizing to see the underlying dynamic or larger context of consciousness and activity at play makes sense to me, and if I'm understanding it right, it's a great point. What doesn't make sense to me though, is grouping Socrates/Plato into some category of "Idealists" and religionists, when they spent their lives attacking such chimeras.

[Orenholt]

what gives rise to murder?
causes/conditions.
greed?
envy?
self-preservation?
peer/herd pressure?

It could be any of those. But in the end it's only because the killer thinks their life will be better somehow if they do kill.

So, that was altogether rhetorical, then?

I'm just wondering if there are other morals that are "always" right or wrong.

[Dennis Mahar]

It could be any of those. But in the end it's only because the killer thinks their life will be better somehow if they do kill.

So, it's a Supply problem.
something about abundance and scarcity.

collateral damage for the ultimate sake of.

subject/object split materialist thinking.

desire.

Idealistic thinking producing ethics/justice is a problem concerning supply.
something about abundance and scarcity.
regulating activity for the ultimate sake of.
desire.

[Orenholt]

So, it's a Supply problem.
something about abundance and scarcity.

collateral damage for the ultimate sake of.

subject/object split materialist thinking.

desire.

Idealistic thinking producing ethics/justice is a problem concerning supply.
something about abundance and scarcity.
regulating activity for the ultimate sake of.
desire.

I don't know if abundance and scarcity have much if anything to do with it. I'm sure there are scenarios where it could factor in but I don't think that it's ALWAYS part of the reason. Sometimes when people kill they don't see it as killing someone else they see it as killing a bad part of themselves. Like I said before, cutting off a finger to save the hand.

[Dennis Mahar]

Like I said before, cutting off a finger to save the hand

at the heart of that a desire for a condition that is not the condition present is desired.
to leave the finger there is a scarcity of the desired condition.
to cut it off is an abundance of the desired condition.

desire is at the very root of our life force.

[Orenholt]

at the heart of that a desire for a condition that is not the condition present is desired.
to leave the finger there is a scarcity of the desired condition.
to cut it off is an abundance of the desired condition.

desire is at the very root of our life force.

Ok you make a point there. I guess I just had supply and demand on my mind.
And yes, desire is a very essential human element.

[Dan Rowden]

So, that was altogether rhetorical, then?

I'm just wondering if there are other morals that are "always" right or wrong.

What is right or wrong is what we say is right or wrong. Simple as that. I don't even think in terms of morality anymore. Morality is for people who don't know what morality is.

[Dan Rowden]

And yes, desire is a very essential human element.

I get this funny feeling that oft' times when you speak of "desire" like this you mean purpose. Our consciousness has a teleological dimension built in so purpose is always part of it. Could this be what you're really getting at?

[Leyla Shen]

Morality is for people who don't know what morality is.

If she can't comprehend superego (and the distinction between that, id and ego), she ain't gonna comprehend that.

[Leyla Shen]

"Alter Ego"

[Orenholt]

So, that was altogether rhetorical, then?

I'm just wondering if there are other morals that are "always" right or wrong.

What is right or wrong is what we say is right or wrong. Simple as that. I don't even think in terms of morality anymore. Morality is for people who don't know what morality is.

Ok but can we agree that there are objectively better and worse ways to accomplish goals?

And yes, desire is a very essential human element.

I get this funny feeling that oft' times when you speak of "desire" like this you mean purpose. Our consciousness has a teleological dimension built in so purpose is always part of it. Could this be what you're really getting at?

What more is our purpose than attaining what we want in life? ;)

Morality is for people who don't know what morality is.

If she can't comprehend superego (and the distinction between that, id and ego), she ain't gonna comprehend that.

I do comprehend it, I just chose to make a different model.

[Leyla Shen]

You remind me of someone...

In any event:

I do comprehend it, [...]

I beg to differ. You will have to prove you comprehend it.

[Orenholt]

You remind me of someone...

In any event:

I do comprehend it, [...]

I beg to differ. You will have to prove you comprehend it.

Freud basically thought that they were separate entities that interacted with each other from my understanding and that the super ego was the source of conscience and targeted perfection.

The difference in my model is that the super ego and id are merely sub-parts of the ego itself and balancing their desires is the end result of what one ACTUALLY desires most.

[Leyla Shen]

What I would like you to do is show me the reason you have "chosen" a different model.

You have (partially) adopted the reasoning behind id and superego, and rejected ego (not to mention the preconscious and the never-discussed conscious).

On what grounds; logical and empirical?

[Dan Rowden]

So, that was altogether rhetorical, then?

I'm just wondering if there are other morals that are "always" right or wrong.

What is right or wrong is what we say is right or wrong. Simple as that. I don't even think in terms of morality anymore. Morality is for people who don't know what morality is.

Ok but can we agree that there are objectively better and worse ways to accomplish goals?

Sure, in that it's better to drive a nail with a hammer than a flaccid penis. Your response to my question about purpose I'll get to later.

[Orenholt]

What I would like you to do is show me the reason you have "chosen" a different model.

You have (partially) adopted the reasoning behind id and superego, and rejected ego (not to mention the preconscious and the never-discussed conscious).

On what grounds; logical and empirical?

I would say that it's basically logical based on my understanding.
Here is a visual aid of my model:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/f ... 145142.png

The ego is the source of all desire, thus the source of all suffering.

The model that I have made shows the ego as a set of scales and the final result of which one weighs more will be the final action taken.
The id is the desire for pleasure (love) and the super ego is the desire to not suffer (fear).
Let's say the id really wants to have sex. The super ego is afraid of STDs.
So the ego strikes a compromise after weighing the two and decides that they weigh equally and thus a condom is used.


It may not be a perfect model but if you have ideas on how to improve it just let me know.

[Leyla Shen]

Orenholt:

I would say that it's basically logical based on my understanding.

I would say, what is your understanding of logic (since I am already questioning your understanding of the subject matter in question, of course)?

The ego is the source of all desire, thus the source of all suffering.

Not according to your model, it isn’t. It’s just manifest desire, why do you call it “ego”?

Since you have reduced “id” to a sort of pleasure principle and “superego” to some sort of an analytical mechanism for achieving the id’s purpose (pleasure), what is what you are calling an ego and why do you need it? Your model appears to be missing a catalyst that could change the dialectical process between what you are calling id and superego and, therefore, any possible variance in the outcome of manifest desire.

So the ego strikes a compromise after weighing the two and decides that they weigh equally and thus a condom is used.

You have not demonstrated this in anywhere in your model (logical or graphic). (Desire weighing desire for the outcome of desire...?)

Yet, according to your previous definition:

The ego is the source of all desire, thus the source of all suffering.

That would mean choosing a condom would be choosing suffering and suffering IS desire. This is essentially what Diebert has been trying to show you, with logic.

It may not be a perfect model but if you have ideas on how to improve it just let me know.

Not perfect? It doesn't make any sense at all as it is, I’m afraid. This is why you continue to fall into contradictions such as the one above.

A coherent set of premises, from which logical conclusions can be drawn, are fundamental to reason. These are what you are missing. You've just got a patchwork of what you think things mean; and one that isn't proving very useful for anything except how you feel.

[Orenholt]

Orenholt:

I would say that it's basically logical based on my understanding.

I would say, what is your understanding of logic (since I am already questioning your understanding of the subject matter in question, of course)?

Any of these definitions for logic work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic?s=t

The ego is the source of all desire, thus the source of all suffering.

Not according to your model, it isn’t. It’s just manifest desire, why do you call it “ego”?

It's a given that desire=suffering. According to the Buddhist suffering is the result of the ego.

Since you have reduced “id” to a sort of pleasure principle and “superego” to some sort of an analytical mechanism for achieving the id’s purpose (pleasure), what is what you are calling an ego and why do you need it? Your model appears to be missing a catalyst that could change the dialectical process between what you are calling id and superego and, therefore, any possible variance in the outcome of manifest desire.

The super ego in my model is weighing the negative consequences on its side. The ego is the entire apparatus and it makes the final call of how much things "weigh".

So the ego strikes a compromise after weighing the two and decides that they weigh equally and thus a condom is used.

You have not demonstrated this in anywhere in your model (logical or graphic). (Desire weighing desire for the outcome of desire...?)

It was just an example I was applying to the model. Just substitute "desire of pleasure" with "sex" and substitute "desire of not suffering" with "fear of STDs".

Yet, according to your previous definition:

The ego is the source of all desire, thus the source of all suffering.

That would mean choosing a condom would be choosing suffering and suffering IS desire. This is essentially what Diebert has been trying to show you, with logic.

Happiness is caused by suffering (because you're doing something about it to change it).
Suffering is caused by happiness (because you're wanting the happiness you don't have).

Happiness and suffering are not the same otherwise they would be impossible to tell apart, but they DO cause each other to happen.

It may not be a perfect model but if you have ideas on how to improve it just let me know.

Not perfect? It doesn't make any sense at all as it is, I’m afraid. This is why you continue to fall into contradictions such as the one above.

A coherent set of premises, from which logical conclusions can be drawn, are fundamental to reason. These are what you are missing. You've just got a patchwork of what you think things mean; and one that isn't proving very useful for anything except how you feel.

Ok then will you make a model that shows how you think it works?

[Leyla Shen]

Ok then will you make a model that shows how you think it works?

I would just call it "A Buddhist Model of Suffering which Tells You Nothing About Ego".