Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
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?
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.
|
|
Bookmarks