The Way to End Suffering

[JackALope2323]

Everything people do is an attempt to be loved or accepted by those around them. Suffering results from them doing things they normally find evil or malicious to other people because their desire to be accepted by doing these things over-rides their conscience. That being said, if you wish the world to be free of suffering, don't try to look cool, and believe in yourself a little more. Remember, the only person who really needs to love and accept you is yourself. Everybody else is just a nice bonus. If nobody else wants to love and accept you for who you are, screw 'em. You're awesome enough either way.

[DrunkenArse]

Everything people do is an attempt to be loved or accepted by those around them. I guess you missed the zoophilia thread. Suffering results from them doing things they normally find evil or malicious to other people because their desire to be accepted by doing these things over-rides their conscience. Suffering results from doing malicious things to other sentient beings regardless of the reason, from natural disasters, disease, bad luck, etc. That being said, if you wish the world to be free of suffering, don't try to look cool, and believe in yourself a little more. Remember, the only person who really needs to love and accept you is yourself. Everybody else is just a nice bonus. If nobody else wants to love and accept you for who you are, screw 'em. You're awesome enough either way. Unless of course their reaction to people that they don't love and approve of is a good old fashioned stake burning. In that case, you might be best advised to fake it.

[Caprisun]

Killing all people is the only answer.

[acatalephobic]

Reading your signature as it follows your post is a little startling... But you make some good points. I wouldn't assume that every action is a result of such motives, but that does happen. And I'll admit you had me until "screw 'em". Only, what happens when a proportionate amount of decisions are made solely with the intent of disregarding what those around you think? Reaction instead of action. Not just people with obvious bad intention, I mean those you respect, trust and admire? The ones with which any desire to be seen as "cool" is a non-issue. All I know is when a person gets too wrapped up in blazing their own trail [regardless or in spite of the consequences to themselves or those around them] they sometimes grow to overlook lessons around them that are equally important. They're two halves of the same coin, I mean. Many battles have started that way, I'd reckon. [Man I hope that made sense.]

[Caprisun]

Everyone should read the book Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker. He says that without love there can be no evil, and without evil there can be no love--the paradox of human nature. The most deplorable actions are perpetrated on the behalf of heroic and altruistic motives, through which the victorious party can foster love and social harmony amongst it's respective community members. Slaughtering the enemy is therefore not evil, it is heroic. Sacrificing a child isn't evil, it is contributing to humanity's triumph over nature. Persecuting Jews isn't evil, it is affirming our favor in God's eyes. There is more at stake than the mere personal love and acceptance of the community, it is a matter of transcending nature and securing your place in eternity. Evil will always be inextricably linked to human nature when it is organized into societies. Suffering can't be completely ended, then.

[juroara]

Reading your signature as it follows your post is a little startling... That is pretty funny, lol Everyone should read the book Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker. He says that without love there can be no evil, and without evil there can be no love--the paradox of human nature. The most deplorable actions are perpetrated on the behalf of heroic and altruistic motives, through which the victorious party can foster love and social harmony amongst it's respective community members. Slaughtering the enemy is therefore not evil, it is heroic. Sacrificing a child isn't evil, it is contributing to humanity's triumph over nature. There is more at stake than the mere personal love and acceptance of the community. Evil will always be inextricably linked to human nature when it is organized into societies. Suffering can't be completely ended, then. Blah blah blah blah, that's just more dualistic bull Haven't you ever heard of bliss? Have you ever experienced BLISS? When a person experiences BLISS, they don't compare it to anything. They don't think "Oh jeez, this bliss thing sure feels better than suffering!". No, when you experience bliss: suffering, evil, bad, wrong, these things cease to exist in your mind. I mean, look at what you said? You just basically portrayed good as the need to be accepted by society. There is a different kind of good - a good that benefits the whole. You, and everyone and everything. You can't however understand this good, what this good means, if you continue to define good by a dualistic extreme such as evil. Oh yeah, and the way to end your suffering is to surrender

[Caprisun]

Haven't you ever heard of bliss? Have you ever experienced BLISS? I have heard that ignorance is bliss. I mean, look at what you said? I didn't say anything. That was my extremely short summary of the aforementioned book. You on the other hand, just referred to a well established scientific theory as "blah blah blah blah." Please elaborate. We aren't necessarily talking about the personal aspect of evil, we are talking about social evil on a large scale. Evil things done by normal people when they know there are no consequences. So any measure of bliss you experience in your life is irrelevant. (And surely your mood isn't in a constant state of bliss, 24/7, 365 days a year.) Reading your signature as it follows your post is a little startling... Just to clear things up, I am not the author of any of those quotes. (I swear I'm not a violent individual.)

[acatalephobic]

I was referring to the OP. [Here's the way to end all suffering, and p.s. all my LD goals involve battles of some kind.] Just sayin.

[DrunkenArse]

I didn't say anything. That was my extremely short summary of the aforementioned book. You on the other hand, just referred to a well established scientific theory as "blah blah blah blah." Please elaborate. What "well established" scientific theory deals with issues like good and evil?

[JackALope2323]

I was referring to the OP. [Here's the way to end all suffering, and p.s. all my LD goals involve battles of some kind.] Just sayin. Hey, just because I'm a pacifist doesn't mean I don't enjoy getting into fights. If two mutually consenting adults wish to engage in combat that will not risk the safety of others, I believe they should be able to. A little (consensual) violence is fun every now and then.

[Caprisun]

What "well established" scientific theory deals with issues like good and evil? I guess you could call it a "science of man" if you wanted, but there isn't necessarily a coherent theory since such a theory would entail the collaboration of a pretty wide scope of expertise, something which is hard when everyone specializes on a small facet of their chosen field. A lot of credible scientists and philosophers have written on the subject though, and some have attempted to piece together some fundamental truths based on existing theories and anthropological evidence, which is why I called it "well established." So naturally I am more inclined to defer to their expertise on the subject rather than juroara's new age shit about bliss and love and the goodness of the soul. The book mentioned above by Ernest Becker is a good starting point. He draws on work from Sigmund Freud, Otto Rank, Norman Brown, Whilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, and a number of others who I can't remember off the top of my head. I don't know if you're really interested or if you are testing me, but if you are interested, I would recommend reading Ernest Becker.

[DrunkenArse]

psychology is a science? When did this happen? [edit 1] Strike that. There is a legitimate science of psychology and I'm not in the mood for the inevitable world of hurt that DuB would drop on me for neglecting that fact. Can you provide an objective definition of good and evil? For the part of psychology that is actually a science to have a "well established" theory concerning them, you would need to objectively define them so that verifiable predictions could be made about them. Short of that, I call BULLSHIT. [edit 2] You know what, never mind. I call bullshit anyway. How can a theory that "isn't necessarily a coherent theory" be scientifically well established? [hint: It can't]

[Caprisun]

Can you provide an objective definition of good and evil? For the part of psychology that is actually a science to have a "well established" theory concerning them, you would need to objectively define them so that verifiable predictions could be made about them. Short of that, I call BULLSHIT. I don't see how an objective definition of good and evil is relevant here. Obviously good is good and evil is bad. What matters is how people interpret the behavior of others and of themselves. There is not much of an objective basis for these interpretations. As I said earlier, there is never a consensus on who is evil and who is good. Two warring nations will always villainize the other. The Western world can pretty well agree that Al Qaeda is evil, but do you think any of it's members actually believe that what they are doing is evil? No, predictably, they think the West is evil, and their actions are therefore heroic. It is remarkably easy to predict behavior using this theory. The basis for all social evil, according to Becker, is unconscious existential anxiety, then it builds and complicates from there. In order to alleviate this anxiety, we create "death-denying" belief systems which allow us to cling to the illusion that we are immortal and are thus the masters of nature. So any threat to a belief system, whether it be religious, political, nationalistic, or other, is literally percieved as a threat to their stake in eternity. Predictably, when an individual's life philosophy is seriously challenged, they begin to act like a wild animal trapped in a corner. Their drive to survive overpowers any rational thought, and as a result, their anxiety is unleashed and terrible things ensue. All "evil" things, whether it be human sacrifice, ethnic cleansing, or needless slaughter and torture on a battlefield, can theoretically be traced back to this force. [edit 2] You know what, never mind. I call bullshit anyway. How can a theory that "isn't necessarily a coherent theory" be scientifically well established? [hint: It can't] Yea, I made the whole thing up. It's disparate parts fit together like a puzzle, each one being strong in and of itself. A science of human nature has existed since before the time of Freud and it has been continually revised and built upon up to the present day. It gets stronger with time. The only reason I said it wasn't coherent is because it doesn't have an official name and it involves more than one science. I am willing to submit that I am doing a terrible job of explaining it, but there is definitely a theory, and it is definitely valid, and it does have an empirical basis (psychological as well as anthropological.) The documentary "Flight from Death" discusses some of the experiments which have tested this theory. Or if you are lazy, you can read wikipedia. Just know that I'm not talking to talk here, and nothing I am saying is original. These aren't just fleeting thoughts which I felt compelled to share with the world. So when you call "bullshit," you are calling bullshit on the work of Otto Rank, Sigmund Freud, Ernest Becker, and the like. I am not saying that to excuse myself of responsibility, I say it because you were awfully quick to denounce these theories without apparently knowing what they stood for. These theories have been endorsed by some pretty high caliber minds, in both the present and the past. (As a non-scientist, that's all I really have to go on.) If you have a legitimate strife, lay it on me. Something other than calling "bullshit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_from_Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Becker http://www.hulu.com/watch/173530/fli...or-immortality

[Awakening]

Flight from death and pursuit of eternity can be interpreted as survival and reproduction, respectively,* for keeping the nature going. They are good for us, yet they are shackles: if we don't make what our body is demanding we have to pay some price-- suffering. But this is not in anyway an excuse to divide everything into "good and evil". That is just insane. Goes away far beyond from eye for a eye: At A people perspective, B people are devils, must suffer and pay respect to A people. At B people perspective, A people are devils, must suffer and pay respect to B people. Who loses? You can think that the most weak loses, but I don't see this way. There are "wrong deeds" (not evil deeds), which someone makes another person suffer (consciously of that), and that will remain in their memories until a repair is made. Living in harmony is what we really want, since almost everybody wants to have their own family someday. Well, that's my crazy theory

[spockman]

Killing all people is the only answer. Killing all creatures with a capacity for pain/emotion is the only answer.

[Caprisun]

Flight from death and pursuit of eternity can be interpreted as survival and reproduction, respectively,* for keeping the nature going. They are good for us, yet they are shackles: if we don't make what our body is demanding we have to pay some price-- suffering. But this is not in anyway an excuse to divide everything into "good and evil". That is just insane. Goes away far beyond from eye for a eye: At A people perspective, B people are devils, must suffer and pay respect to A people. At B people perspective, A people are devils, must suffer and pay respect to B people. Who loses? You can think that the most weak loses, but I don't see this way. There are "wrong deeds" (not evil deeds), which someone makes another person suffer (consciously of that), and that will remain in their memories until a repair is made. Living in harmony is what we really want, since almost everybody wants to have their own family someday. Well, that's my crazy theory This goes deeper than conscious thought. It isn't enough to say it is wrong to harm another person, therefore we should all live in peace. If it were that simple, we would obviously be living in some sort of utopia right now. It is an irresolvable paradox. **Humans want peace and tranquility**, but through their efforts to acheive this, they inadvertantly create evil. There is no escape from it. Case in point, we want to eradicate terrorism from this planet, but through our efforts to do this we have reigned death and destruction throughout the Middle East, and here at home we discriminate against anyone of Muslim decent. Then you could also turn the mirror on the insurgent groups and make the same argument. Nobody is evil in their own eyes. The rational thing for both sides to do would be to realize that both sides are human, neither side is inherently evil, and both could easily coexist in harmony, but due to differing belief systems and a general lack of rationality in the world, that is not possible. If their belief system is right, it must mean ours is wrong, and vice versa. A group of humans cannot cope with the prospect of a nullified belief, so they act to assert their respective belief systems. Then a brief overview of history will tell you what usually results from this situation. This dynamic has been created between opposing forces for time immemorial, back even before civilization. That would imply an immutable force rooted deep in human nature which is causing this behavior. ["The greatest cause of evil included all human motives in one giant paradox. Good and bad were so inextricably mixed that we couldn't make them out; bad seemed to lead to good, and good motives led to bad. The paradox is that evil comes from man's urge to heroic victory over evil. The evil that troubles man most is his vulnerability; he seems impotent to guarantee the absolute meaning of his life, its significance in the cosmos. He assures a plentitude of evil, then, by trying to make closure on his cosmic heroism *in this life and this world.*"]-- Ernest Becker *As opposed to in heaven or the spiritual world. ** Though it has also been purposed that humans can unconsciously lust for violence.

[Awakening]

I would agree you if you said 'humans want peace and tranquility and power'. I believe that exists two main forces behind humans mind: mutualism and desire for dominance. The first seeks an equilibrium, actions towards the greater good. The second, being the opposite, seeks power through means of violence, sexuality, control, repression and so on (that's what you could call evil). While mutualism can fight against wrong deeds by means of violence and stop when the equilibrium is restored, the desire for dominance is voracious and endless and rather difficult to stop by peaceful terms. With the advent of television without heavy social control, the thirst for power was made even more appealing. Sex was totally hackneyed: men turned into sex machines and women into dummies. Violence is showed by TV by an angle of entertainment, or at least curiosity, while should be a social approach. Because of this, violence is sky rocketing nowadays, so people who want a peacefully life need superb security systems like bunkers and cameras everywhere, so that they won't get kidnapped, raped, killed or robbed; but not before paying absurd prices and selling their freedom to the devil. It's like a feudal system without contract: people with power make the laws and those who do not, being coerced to obey (or else they have great chances to become homeless and hungry), since they do not have real knowledge to make the change. Machines are doing all the work for us and we are consuming the Earth at a faster pace than it can recover, yet there are more than a billion people hungry (not for lack of food but rather for lack of mutualism), so what's the reason to accept this? It's like calling another Hitler to the Earth .

[Caprisun]

I would agree you if you said 'humans want peace and tranquility and power'. I believe that exists two main forces behind humans mind: mutualism and desire for dominance. The first seeks an equilibrium, actions towards the greater good. The second, being the opposite, seeks power through means of violence, sexuality, control, repression and so on (that's what you could call evil). While mutualism can fight against wrong deeds by means of violence and stop when the equilibrium is restored, the desire for dominance is voracious and endless and rather difficult to stop by peaceful terms. Yes, humans also want power. Humans want a lot of things; that doesn't get to the root of the problem, though. A thirst for power doesn't account for the particularly sadistic and barbaric behavior we have witnessed throughout history. Partly because the majority of people are perfectly content with a life of subordination, and partly because the only people affected by the influence of power are people who are already in power, at least the ones who are willing to kill to retain their position (think ancient Rome.) Why, then, would reams of soldiers needlessly torture their enemy and desecrate their way of life when they don't stand to gain any individual power? How would power play into human sacrifice and and ethnic cleansing? Or scapegoating? Those particular forms of evil are enforced by the common citizen as much as the government leaders. Surely an autonomous human being with their own set of morals couldn't be trick into perpetrating such inhumane acts unless he believed he was justified. This is evidence of a deeper spiritual force acting on these individuals. As Becker said, "evil comes from man's urge to heroic victory over evil." Evil is anything which challenges the heroe's world view, so the villain isn't necessarily evil, it is the actions of the hero which are evil. (Though more often than not, both sides are equally guilty.) Again, I draw your attention to the paradoxical nature of the previous two statements. When we talk about evil, we don't talk about Emperor Constantius and how he murdered his family members so as to prevent them from ursurping his throne. We talk about Nazis and terrorism and crusades and inquisitions. To put it simply, according to human psychology, the spiritual world is more important than the real world, in general. A "spiritual death" is therefore just as devastating as a physical death. So it is vitally important to uphold the integrity of your given belief system, and this extends beyond religion. It is nationalism, political preference, racism, or any sort of group which sets you against someone else. "Us" and "them," in two words can sum up all of this planet's most violent atrocities.

[Invader]

Killing all people is the only answer. Man, I agree. The alternative is to give everyone in the world ecstasy at the same time.

[DrunkenArse]

I don't see how an objective definition of good and evil is relevant here. Obviously good is good and evil is bad. What matters is how people interpret the behavior of others and of themselves. There is not much of an objective basis for these interpretations. As I said earlier, there is never a consensus on who is evil and who is good. Two warring nations will always villainize the other. The Western world can pretty well agree that Al Qaeda is evil, but do you think any of it's members actually believe that what they are doing is evil? No, predictably, they think the West is evil, and their actions are therefore heroic. It is remarkably easy to predict behavior using this theory. When it is remarkably easy to make predictions with a theory, that's normally a good sign that the theory is uninteresting. Also, you are using evil in a very different context in this post than before I called you out. For example, you said that "evil will always be inexorably linked with human nature" as if evil was something real. Now you are saying that it is a name that other people call each other. I have no problem with that so long as we keep it clear that calling someone evil carries as much weight as calling them a poopyface. The basis for all social evil, according to Becker, is unconscious existential anxiety, then it builds and complicates from there. In order to alleviate this anxiety, we create "death-denying" belief systems which allow us to cling to the illusion that we are immortal and are thus the masters of nature. So any threat to a belief system, whether it be religious, political, nationalistic, or other, is literally percieved as a threat to their stake in eternity. Predictably, when an individual's life philosophy is seriously challenged, they begin to act like a wild animal trapped in a corner. Their drive to survive overpowers any rational thought, and as a result, their anxiety is unleashed and terrible things ensue. All "evil" things, whether it be human sacrifice, ethnic cleansing, or needless slaughter and torture on a battlefield, can theoretically be traced back to this force. The scientific model that you are referring to is Terror Management Theory. Saying "act like a wild animal" is a little dramatic. Looking at the Wikipedia page (down in the references), it's legitimacy is disputed by the evolutionary psychologists. So I would hardly say that it is "well established." Often times experiments can verify the predictions of a theory without distinguishing between multiple theories that all have the same predictions. Flight from Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ernest Becker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.hulu.com/watch/173530/fli...or-immortality [/quote] These are the wrong links for someone that wants to learn about what you are talking about. Terror management theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Terror...nt_Theory_(TMT) Those are two good places to start. On the whole, the theory doesn't seem to say anything about good and evil and instead refers to in-group mentality. So when Juroara dismissed your post as dualistic bull, she sort of had a point. You are putting a lot of stuff on the theory that it doesn't seem to actually say. So when you call "bullshit," you are calling bullshit on the work of Otto Rank, Sigmund Freud, Ernest Becker, and the like. Doesn't phase me in the least. I'll call bullshit on anybody, anytime, anywhere that I think I smell it. Worst case scenario, I end up looking like an arrogant asshole. I have no problem being who I am. I'm going to have to mull over this TMT more now that I have sources for it but It still smells to me.

[Awakening]

Yes, humans also want power. Humans want a lot of things; that doesn't get to the root of the problem, though. A thirst for power doesn't account for the particularly sadistic and barbaric behavior we have witnessed throughout history. Partly because the majority of people are perfectly content with a life of subordination, and partly because the only people affected by the influence of power are people who are already in power, at least the ones who are willing to kill to retain their position (think ancient Rome.) Why, then, would reams of soldiers needlessly torture their enemy and desecrate their way of life when they don't stand to gain any individual power? How would power play into human sacrifice and and ethnic cleansing? Or scapegoating? Those particular forms of evil are enforced by the common citizen as much as the government leaders. Surely an autonomous human being with their own set of morals couldn't be trick into perpetrating such inhumane acts unless he believed he was justified. This is evidence of a deeper spiritual force acting on these individuals. As Becker said, "evil comes from man's urge to heroic victory over evil." Evil is anything which challenges the heroe's world view, so the villain isn't necessarily evil, it is the actions of the hero which are evil. (Though more often than not, both sides are equally guilty.) Again, I draw your attention to the paradoxical nature of the previous two statements. When we talk about evil, we don't talk about Emperor Constantius and how he murdered his family members so as to prevent them from ursurping his throne. We talk about Nazis and terrorism and crusades and inquisitions. To put it simply, according to human psychology, the spiritual world is more important than the real world, in general. A "spiritual death" is therefore just as devastating as a physical death. So it is vitally important to uphold the integrity of your given belief system, and this extends beyond religion. It is nationalism, political preference, racism, or any sort of group which sets you against someone else. "Us" and "them," in two words can sum up all of this planet's most violent atrocities. You talk about people which torture and do ethnic cleansing like they are random devils that are deep rooted in our human nature and I couldn't agree more. But you just stop there: you don't think a way of stopping it (instead imply that top solution is to kill him), assuming that is natural and things will forever be this way. I'm totally against this oversimplifying. I mean, who knows if we were born in the place of Hitler or Nero, with our own genes instead, we wouldn't become them? And be assured that the people who torture or kill without reason have pleasure, because it IS desire for dominance. My point is that we all are born barbarians, and even if exists prodigies with intelligence above the common man like Da Vinci or Goebbels, if the average man is told how to use his desire for dominance in healthy ways and focus entirely on stopping when it gets out of control, we can have an acceptable society, without absurd crimes like rapping and torturing. When we talk about evil, we don't talk about Emperor Constantius and how he murdered his family members so as to prevent You made a mistake here. Preventing things with violence, it's like calling more violence. Preventing is made with education. Repairing violence is what could be made with violence. Anyway, that Roman craziness is a perfect example of the desire of dominance being out of control. Why a place in society should be so highlighted that one could desire killing his own family for it? When you said 'us and them' I remembered a few phrases of the music of Pink Floyd: "united we stand" "divided we fall"

[Caprisun]

When it is remarkably easy to make predictions with a theory, that's normally a good sign that the theory is uninteresting. Also, you are using evil in a very different context in this post than before I called you out. For example, you said that "evil will always be inexorably linked with human nature" as if evil was something real. Now you are saying that it is a name that other people call each other. I have no problem with that so long as we keep it clear that calling someone evil carries as much weight as calling them a poopyface. Of course good and evil are abstract concepts, I don't believe I ever stated otherwise. To say evil is "inextricably linked to human nature" is still not a fallacious statement. It doesn't mean there is a physical section of the brain with the mark of the beast imprinted on it, it means it is in our nature to behave this way and it is only through subjective interpretation that this behavior comes to be known as evil. It isn't something which can simply be overcome through heightened consciousness. The only way to counteract this tendency would be to either a.) kill everyone ,or b.) return to stupid animal life with no semblance of societal structure. It is structure and unequality which facilitates this behavior. Once it is activated, it will run amuck. Whenever humans organize into groups, whether it's small tribes or large nations, evil is 100% inevitable. That is because it is inextricably linked to our psychology. Only, we either don't know about it, or we refuse to acknowledge it's existence in ourselves. Meanwhile, it lies dormant in our unconscious minds, waiting for it's cue. (And I don't know about you, but this stuff interests me tremendously. So I guess it's predictability doesn't really have an effect on me.) The scientific model that you are referring to is Terror Management Theory. Saying "act like a wild animal" is a little dramatic. Looking at the Wikipedia page (down in the references), it's legitimacy is disputed by the evolutionary psychologists. So I would hardly say that it is "well established." Often times experiments can verify the predictions of a theory without distinguishing between multiple theories that all have the same predictions. Terror Management Theory is a small facet of what I am talking about. And I said when a belief system is seriously challenged, people will begin to act much like an animal trapped in a corner. Not in that they start thrashing about chaotically, but in that they act in irrational and discriminatory ways when they otherwise wouldn't. If I walked up to a Christian and told him that God is not real, I wouldn't expect him to take a combative stance and cut me down where I stood. The threat has to be legitimate. According to wikipedia, the dispute is from a relatively small group from UCLA, and from reading their criticisms, I don't really see how they are legitimate. These are the wrong links for someone that wants to learn about what you are talking about. Terror management theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Terror...nt_Theory_(TMT) Those are two good places to start. No, I picked those links deliberately because they were, in my opinion, the best places to start. Ernest Becker is the most useful source for someone who is unfamiliar with this subject. He goes well beyond terror management theory. On the whole, the theory doesn't seem to say anything about good and evil and instead refers to in-group mentality. So when Juroara dismissed your post as dualistic bull, she sort of had a point. You are putting a lot of stuff on the theory that it doesn't seem to actually say. I still don't think you even get it. There are some fundamental truths which you seem to be ignoring. Yes, ingroup mentality has a lot to do with this, but that is only a manifestation of deeper forces. There has to be something which is causing us to so vehemently defend our world view and there has to be something which is causing us to lash out at opposing beliefs when they pose no physical threat. Existential anxiety underlies all of this. Calling it "dualistic bull" is a superficial analysis. Doesn't phase me in the least. I'll call bullshit on anybody, anytime, anywhere that I think I smell it. Worst case scenario, I end up looking like an arrogant asshole. I have no problem being who I am. I'm going to have to mull over this TMT more now that I have sources for it but It still smells to me. It should phase you, honestly. If it's worth anything, we discussed terror management theory in my social psychology class the other day and my professor made no mention of it's "smelliness." What exactly smells about it? You talk about people which torture and do ethnic cleansing like they are random devils that are deep rooted in our human nature and I couldn't agree more. But you just stop there: you don't think a way of stopping it (instead imply that top solution is to kill him), assuming that is natural and things will forever be this way. I'm totally against this oversimplifying. I mean, who knows if we were born in the place of Hitler or Nero, with our own genes instead, we wouldn't become them? And be assured that the people who torture or kill without reason have pleasure, because it IS desire for dominance. My point is that we all are born barbarians, and even if exists prodigies with intelligence above the common man like Da Vinci or Goebbels, if the average man is told how to use his desire for dominance in healthy ways and focus entirely on stopping when it gets out of control, we can have an acceptable society, without absurd crimes like rapping and torturing. There is no viable solution that I can see. This is not an oversimplification, it is based on a wealth of empirical evidence and the entire history of human society. There is no evidence that this behavior could ever simply end. What basis do you have for even raising that question? Why, after thousands and thousands of years of violent conflict, would this pattern suddenly end? Nothing short of genetic evolution over thousands of years could change our nature to a noticeable degree, and that is assuming that we would even evolve in that direction (something which is virtually impossible to predict.) What basis do you have for any of these claims? Surely power plays a large part, but we have to get down to the very foundation of evil if we want to really understand it. Dominance is a superficial concept just like good and evil, which means it isn't at the root of human nature. There is a construct which drives the desire for dominance just as there is a construct which drives the will to do good, which subsequently creates it's counterpart, evil. I think it is interesting that when you talk about Hitler and Nero, you take on the "us" and "them" attitude that I referenced earlier. What difference does it make if our genes were put in their place? Are we not all human? Do we not all possess the same capacity for good and evil? It is well known that genes influence personality development, but there isn't any evidence that people are born corrupted. Meaning neither Hitler nor Nero were doomed to become evil men from birth. It is a complex interaction between the environment and our biology which accounts for personality development. (Or maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying those individuals were inherently more evil than the average human?) You made a mistake here. Preventing things with violence, it's like calling more violence. Preventing is made with education. Repairing violence is what could be made with violence. Anyway, that Roman craziness is a perfect example of the desire of dominance being out of control. Why a place in society should be so highlighted that one could desire killing his own family for it? When you said 'us and them' I remembered a few phrases of the music of Pink Floyd: "united we stand" "divided we fall" I don't understand your point. Im not trying to offer a solution to the problem here.

[DrunkenArse]

Of course good and evil are abstract concepts, I don't believe I ever stated otherwise. To say evil is "inextricably linked to human nature" is still not a fallacious statement. It doesn't mean there is a physical section of the brain with the mark of the beast imprinted on it, it means it is in our nature to behave this way and it is only through subjective interpretation that this behavior comes to be known as evil. The sentence, "evil is inextricably linked to human nature" absolutely gives reality to evil. Do you think a dog sees evil when he looks at humans? No? Well then evil's been extricated from human nature in the eyes of that observer, hence invalidating any claim that it's inextricably linked. If you want to go all anthrocentric on me, then imagine an alien race with no concept of evil. It isn't something which can simply be overcome through heightened consciousness. The only way to counteract this tendency would be to either a.) kill everyone ,or b.) return to stupid animal life with no semblance of societal structure. According to TMT (the only [questionably] valid scientific theory that you've mentioned. If and when you provide another one, I'll address it as well) the root of in-group favoritism (or "Calling Shit Evil"TM if you insist) is fear of death. So, within the bounds of TMT, one can decide to quit calling shit evil to the extent that one can a.) overcome ones fear of death through belief in an afterlife and b.) be confident enough in ones convictions to not be threatened by it being questioned. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to call "animal life" stupid and as you're living it right now. Also, there is much more than semblance but actual societal structure throughout the animal kingdom so I wouldn't knock that either. It is structure and unequality which facilitates this behavior. Once it is activated, it will run amuck. Whenever humans organize into groups, whether it's small tribes or large nations, evil is 100% inevitable. That is because it is inextricably linked to our psychology. Only, we either don't know about it, or we refuse to acknowledge it's existence. Meanwhile, it lies dormant in our unconscious minds, waiting for it's cue. Yet again referring to evil as something which actually exists. the line "refuse to acknowledge it's existence" is particularly incriminating on this point. You are most definitely well beyond the bounds of TMT here which only deals with the perception of evil (and that only loosely having developed a more precise vocabulary). (And I don't know about you, but this stuff interests me tremendously. So I guess it's predictability doesn't really have an effect on me.) I guess I spoke loosely. What I meant was that when you can derive predictions that a theory makes without the theory, then it's not interesting as in, adds nothing to our knowledge. This doesn't quite seem to be the case with TMT but it seems pretty close. Terror Management Theory is a small facet of what I am talking about. This is my point exactly. So you are not speaking purely from a "well-established" scientific theory are you?" If so, what other scientific theory are you speaking from? And I said when a belief system is seriously challenged, people will begin to act much like an animal trapped in a corner. Not in that they start thrashing about chaotically, but in that they act in irrational and discriminatory ways when they otherwise wouldn't. You should really study some ethology (given that you seem to be so interested in one of its sub-disciplines) . Most animals don't thrash about chaotically when cornered but preserve their energy for the fight. According to wikipedia, the dispute is from a relatively small group from UCLA, and from reading their criticisms, I don't really see how they are legitimate. Kirkpatrick is at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg PA. He's no slouch. I would take him far more seriously than Freud or Becker for instance. Also, what do you think is illegitimate about the critiques? The seem pretty solid though not conclusive. No, I picked those links deliberately because they were, in my opinion, the best places to start. Ernest Becker is the most useful source for someone who is unfamiliar with this subject. He goes well beyond terror management theory. You have a weird opinion. Two of the links didn't even talk about this stuff (one was beckers biography and the other was about the film that you linked too) and the film has an unattractive signal to noise ratio. Honestly, it seems more like you are trying to argue from vicarious authority than to actually share ideas. I still don't think you even get it. There are some fundamental truths which you seem to be ignoring. Clue me in and back it up. Or are you just talking about a bunch of liberal arts mumbo jumbo? Cause I kinda feel that that's what's going on here. That's fine. Just don't claim to be talking about a well established scientific theory when you do this. [ Yes, ingroup mentality has a lot to do with this, but that is only a manifestation of deeper forces. And yet it seems to be one of the few things that you are talking about that can actually be measured. I could cook up any theory that predicted increase in in-group favortism in response to mortality salience and it would be just as well supported by the evidence. There has to be something which is causing us to so vehemently defend our world view and there has to be something which is causing us to lash out at opposing beliefs when they pose no physical threat. Existential anxiety underlies all of this. That is the theory of TMT. It should phase you, honestly. No it shouldn't. If it's worth anything, we discussed terror management theory in my social psychology class the other day and my professor made no mention of it's "smelliness." What exactly smells about it? ahhhh......yeah, that sounds about right. Think about that statement. Tell your professor that some anonymous troll on the internet doesn't care if some anonymous professor doesn't think that a theory is smelly or not. I'm sure the feeling will be mutual. More to the point, if you can back your position up with an argument, why does it matter what your professor thinks, and if you can't, then why are taking his words on faith? Onto the smelliness: The big thing about it is that the team from UCLA seem to have provided a mechanism that would produce identical experimental findings that actually fits into modern evolutionary theory and doesn't require all this liberal arts fluff. That strikes me as making the theory pretty smelly. Of course it requires you to acknowledge that you're just a monkey but I don't really have the time of day for somebody that can't come to terms with that basic fact. There is no viable solution that I can see. This is not an oversimplification, it is based on a wealth of empirical evidence and the entire history of human society. There is no evidence that this behavior could ever simply end. What basis do you have for even raising that question? Why, after thousands and thousands of years of violent conflict, would this pattern suddenly end? Why, after billions of years of walking, climbing or swimming everywhere we need to go would that pattern simply end? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm just showing that it's a weak ass argument.

[DuB]

There is a legitimate science of psychology and I'm not in the mood for the inevitable world of hurt that DuB would drop on me for neglecting that fact. Heh... I just decided to check this thread out . I am slowly learning to cope with the fact that psychology will simply never be respected by many people. Oh well. Anyway, terror management theory (TMT) is interesting. I've read a couple papers on it but it's not something I've been interested enough in to study in detail. It basically says that mortality salience (i.e., conscious consideration of the fact that one will someday cease to exist) induces a sense of existential anxiety ("terror") which we are unconsciously motivated to resolve by affirming cultural worldviews (because our culture will outlive us). The drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket makes a remark at one point which a TMT theorist would love: "Marines die; that's what we're here for. But the Marine Corps lives forever. And that means YOU live forever." So the causal chain advanced by TMT goes something like this: Mortality salience --> existential anxiety ("terror") --> unconscious motivation to reduce anxiety --> temporarily increased affirmation of personally endorsed cultural worldviews (among other, similar behavioral effects) Regarding its status in the field, there are two ways to think about it: its empirical status and its theoretical status. On the empirical side, the experimental effects described by TMT theorists (typically manipulating mortality salience) appear to be robust. A recent meta-analysis summarized the empirical literature to date. So, empirically speaking, it's regarded as well established at least that mortality salience --> increased affirmation of worldviews. The theoretical status of TMT is slightly more controversial. It's not clear to everyone in the field that TMT is the best or most accurate theoretical framework to account for the findings from above. As I mentioned above, I am not super familiar with this area of the literature, but from what I recall it has not been firmly established that the causal link from mortality salience to affirmation of worldviews is mediated by "existential terror." So one of the major theoretical entities posited by TMT is somewhat in question. (See this link for an interesting theoretical alternative--and some supporting data--which the authors refer to somewhat less flashily as "uncertainty management theory.") The theoretical rebuttal from evolutionary psychology is also somewhat compelling (here is a representative paper; incidentally, this paper has one of the most amusing titles I've seen in a scientific paper: "Reports of My Death Anxiety Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" ). Each theoretical perspective has its (often vocal) advocates, but I'm not sure that the majority of the field finds any of the alternatives super compelling. As I mentioned earlier, the raw empirical facts are typically regarded as uncontroversial, but the dominant response to the theory seems to be to keep our noses out of it and let those more interested in that sort of thing figure it out. As for other ideas by Becker et al. beyond TMT... I don't really know anything about that. They're not ideas which are discussed within academic psychology (interesting as they may nevertheless be).

[Caprisun]

The sentence, "evil is inextricably linked to human nature" absolutely gives reality to evil. Do you think a dog sees evil when he looks at humans? No? Well then evil's been extricated from human nature in the eyes of that observer, hence invalidating any claim that it's inextricably linked. If you want to go all anthrocentric on me, then imagine an alien race with no concept of evil. "The concept of evil is inextricably linked to human nature." How about that? This is utterly pointless and it makes no difference to the argument. According to TMT (the only [questionably] valid scientific theory that you've mentioned. If and when you provide another one, I'll address it as well) the root of in-group favoritism (or "Calling Shit Evil"TM if you insist) is fear of death. So, within the bounds of TMT, one can decide to quit calling shit evil to the extent that one can a.) overcome ones fear of death through belief in an afterlife and b.) be confident enough in ones convictions to not be threatened by it being questioned. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to call "animal life" stupid and as you're living it right now. Also, there is much more than semblance but actual societal structure throughout the animal kingdom so I wouldn't knock that either. All you are doing is knit-picking irrelevant facts. People can't "decide to quit calling shit evil" if they don't realize how and why they are doing it, or even that it's a bad thing to do. That's the problem with unconscious processes, you have no idea that they exist in you, let alone how they manifest themselves in your life. Do you think people stop and think "hmmmm, I wonder if these terrorists really are evil? Am I thinking rationally right now? Why do I feel so much anger and hatred towards them?" Get real. "Stupid animal life" isn't stupid in that I'm pointing my finger and laughing at how stupid the other animals are. What matters is consciousness, so a stupid animal life is one which is blissfully unaware of the nature of it's existence and driven almost entirely by instinct. That's something which isn't possible for humans. Yet again referring to evil as something which actually exists. the line "refuse to acknowledge it's existence" is particularly incriminating on this point. You are most definitely well beyond the bounds of TMT here which only deals with the perception of evil (and that only loosely having developed a more precise vocabulary). Completely and totally irrelevant. I explicitly stated on more than one occasion that evil is nothing more than a subjective interpretation, or a perception as you say. I don't know how I could make myself more clear on that. What you can't deny, is that there is a physical construct within our brains which makes us suceptible to behaving in ways which can be interpreted as evil, or attributing evil qualities to other individuals. That is all I have ever said in terms of "it's existence" or "it's inextricable link." I use the word evil for the sake of clarity, as does Becker. This is like me interpreting a story about the tooth fairy and you construing it to mean I actually think the tooth fairy exists. What matters is what it symbollically represents to the human mind. As Otto Rank says, humans have the ability to make the unreal real. Unreal concepts manifest themselves in real ways, that is the relevant point here. This is my point exactly. So you are not speaking purely from a "well-established" scientific theory are you?" If so, what other scientific theory are you speaking from? Ernest Becker first and foremost. I know that isn't a theory, but he bases his work off of a number of theories. He was an anthropologist, not a psychologist. Terror Management Theory came after he died and it deals with a very specific aspect of his work, which is existential anxiety. What was so great about Ernest Becker was the interdisciplinary nature of his work. He could take relevant facts from a variety of sources and string them together to paint a more accurate picture of reality than any single field of research could. Then the issue stems out from there with the work of many of his sources such as Otto Rank and Sigmund Freud from the psychological perspective, and then many others from the anthropological, historical, and philisophical perspectives. I don't think you've read beyond the wikipedia page of terror management theory (if even that,) while I am drawing on the information I learned from Becker's books and other books I've read in the past which indirectly relate to this. Obviously the books go more in depth. You should really study some ethology (given that you seem to be so interested in one of its sub-disciplines) . Most animals don't thrash about chaotically when cornered but preserve their energy for the fight. What does this have to do with anything? What does it matter? Does an animal trapped in a corner have a clear mind? Is it calm and rational? Or does it enter a panic-induced, adrenaline-filled trance where it will do whatever it takes to survive, no matter the cost? Why do you feel the need to knit-pick like this? Kirkpatrick is at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg PA. He's no slouch. I would take him far more seriously than Freud or Becker for instance. Also, what do you think is illegitimate about the critiques? The seem pretty solid though not conclusive. You would take him more seriously than Becker, but you don't know who Becker is. Awesome. Kirkpatrick's argument is that natural selection would "select for an organism which didn't display this crippling emotion." Well, who says it's crippling? In the beginning of Becker's book, Escape from Evil, he makes several arguments for how this emotion would benefit the small societies from which it evolved. Discriminating against "them" helps to bond "us." So even if this emotion could be deemed "crippling," it has other advantages which could perpetuate it's existence. You have a weird opinion. Two of the links didn't even talk about this stuff (one was beckers biography and the other was about the film that you linked too) and the film has an unattractive signal to noise ratio. Honestly, it seems more like you are trying to argue from vicarious authority than to actually share ideas. I wanted you to be familiar with Becker instead of just reading the terror management theory page, which is why I didn't post it. But low and behold, you found it anyway, and now you are arguing with a tenuous grasp of what this theory actually entails (as evidenced by your "calling bullshit" on something which clearly is not bullshit, and then agreeing with the half-baked opinion that this is just "dualistic bull".) Terror management theory comes from Becker's work, so obviously you should start with Becker. It makes much more sense when viewed from an anthropological perspective as well as a psychological perspective. Clue me in and back it up. Or are you just talking about a bunch of liberal arts mumbo jumbo? Cause I kinda feel that that's what's going on here. That's fine. Just don't claim to be talking about a well established scientific theory when you do this. Honestly, do you have anything substantial to contribute? Or any deliberate reason for paining me with these irrelevant questions? I've been cluing you in for several posts now. And yet it seems to be one of the few things that you are talking about that can actually be measured. I could cook up any theory that predicted increase in in-group favortism in response to mortality salience and it would be just as well supported by the evidence. Where would you get the idea to test ingroup/outgroup mentality and mortality salience if not from terror management theory or it's sources? That is terror managment theory, so I am wondering what separate theory you could cook up from that. That is the theory of TMT. Which means it's not dualistic bull, right? No it shouldn't. You're right, you are beginning to sound arrogant, and I can't see how you could possibly justify it. ahhhh......yeah, that sounds about right. Think about that statement. Tell your professor that some anonymous troll on the internet doesn't care if some anonymous professor doesn't think that a theory is smelly or not. I'm sure the feeling will be mutual. More to the point, if you can back your position up with an argument, why does it matter what your professor thinks, and if you can't, then why are taking his words on faith? I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I said professor, not high school psychology teacher. This man has decades of research experience in this field, so I can't see how he is not the proper authority to appeal to. I'm only a psychology minor, and I read this stuff for fun, so obviously it would be a good idea for me to have credible sources for my information. Just as in any paper you write, you need sources. Nobody cares about your opinion unless it is well-informed. So I am doing the best I can with my current understanding to argue these points. Onto the smelliness: The big thing about it is that the team from UCLA seem to have provided a mechanism that would produce identical experimental findings that actually fits into modern evolutionary theory and doesn't require all this liberal arts fluff. That strikes me as making the theory pretty smelly. Of course it requires you to acknowledge that you're just a monkey but I don't really have the time of day for somebody that can't come to terms with that basic fact. What liberal arts fluff, and what mechanism? And why is it more valid than terror management theory? Why bother if you are going to be vague and unitelligible? Why, after billions of years of walking, climbing or swimming everywhere we need to go would that pattern simply end? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm just showing that it's a weak ass argument. That isn't a valid analogy. It is only through technology that that pattern has ended, so technically, in terms of our biology, it hasn't ended. So unless you are proposing some sort of mind control, the analogy doesn't work. I was only raising the question because Awakening seems so sure that human suffering can come to an end at some point in time, and I want to know his line of reasoning.