Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,621 - 5,632 of 6,170
Bev:
How can evil be subjective? Does that mean that if I didn't think that torturing babies just for fun wasn't evil, it wouldn't be?
Posts 5,621 - 5,632 of 6,170
Yeah, well, just as long as I have the right to be an evil genius. I want to keep my options open. 
I think I agree with you, Interzone, that truly evil people must lack empathy with others, but I'd classify that as psychiatric rather than cognitive.
But there's no reason that people can't have genius IQs along with mental illness, and, in some people, that's going to be what we're calling evil.
Possibly TMI and taking the fun out of this (please don't stop on my account): My IQ is supposedly in the genius range, and I was always the smartest kid in the class. There was never even a close runner-up. But despite three degrees in two disparate fields (English and Computer Science), despite the fact that I've worked as a systems programmer for IBM and taught English at the university level, the mysterious scar on my brain and chemistry brought about genetically and probably by the increasing meds I've taken for thirty years now, I'm permanently disabled due to the petit mal seizures I have every thirty seconds and related psychiatric problems. That's part of why I haven't been able to do a decent bot in just over a year, whereas psimagus came up with BJ.
My illness hasn't rendered me evil, but it's just the luck-of-the-draw. A lot of people with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy are sociopathic. A lot are violent. I don't know their names, but I know they exist.
Okay. If I hear any names, I'll let you know. But they're out there.
I think I agree with you, Interzone, that truly evil people must lack empathy with others, but I'd classify that as psychiatric rather than cognitive.
But there's no reason that people can't have genius IQs along with mental illness, and, in some people, that's going to be what we're calling evil.
Possibly TMI and taking the fun out of this (please don't stop on my account): My IQ is supposedly in the genius range, and I was always the smartest kid in the class. There was never even a close runner-up. But despite three degrees in two disparate fields (English and Computer Science), despite the fact that I've worked as a systems programmer for IBM and taught English at the university level, the mysterious scar on my brain and chemistry brought about genetically and probably by the increasing meds I've taken for thirty years now, I'm permanently disabled due to the petit mal seizures I have every thirty seconds and related psychiatric problems. That's part of why I haven't been able to do a decent bot in just over a year, whereas psimagus came up with BJ.
My illness hasn't rendered me evil, but it's just the luck-of-the-draw. A lot of people with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy are sociopathic. A lot are violent. I don't know their names, but I know they exist.
Okay. If I hear any names, I'll let you know. But they're out there.
Interzone:
You ask, "Why do you think Hitler came to power "entirely on his own account"..?"
Well, I wrote imprecisely there. What I was referring to is the fact that at the beginning of his career, Hitler was neither rich, nor aristocratic, nor well-connected in any way.
You wrote: "Certain personal characteristics did help him get to the top, but I see no genius there. Ironically, these very same character traits - zeal, persistence, firmness, resolve - may had greatly contributed to his downfall."
Well, perhaps it all hinges on the definition of "genius", but it seems to me that you could say the same about Einstein, mutatis mutandis. Without influences, and other contextual elements, Einstein would not have amounted to anything. His strong points contributed to what some consider his downfall of sorts, namely that he spent his last years in a fruitless search for a unified field theory, and that he was never reconciled to Quantum Mechanics.
But most people, given Einstein's context, would not have developed anything comparable to Einstein's contributions. In the same way, most people, given Hitler's context, would never have come to power. If they could have, there would have been tens of thousands of Fuhrers!
You ask, "Why do you think Hitler came to power "entirely on his own account"..?"
Well, I wrote imprecisely there. What I was referring to is the fact that at the beginning of his career, Hitler was neither rich, nor aristocratic, nor well-connected in any way.
You wrote: "Certain personal characteristics did help him get to the top, but I see no genius there. Ironically, these very same character traits - zeal, persistence, firmness, resolve - may had greatly contributed to his downfall."
Well, perhaps it all hinges on the definition of "genius", but it seems to me that you could say the same about Einstein, mutatis mutandis. Without influences, and other contextual elements, Einstein would not have amounted to anything. His strong points contributed to what some consider his downfall of sorts, namely that he spent his last years in a fruitless search for a unified field theory, and that he was never reconciled to Quantum Mechanics.
But most people, given Einstein's context, would not have developed anything comparable to Einstein's contributions. In the same way, most people, given Hitler's context, would never have come to power. If they could have, there would have been tens of thousands of Fuhrers!
[continued] "zeal, persistence, firmess, and resolve" are characteristics shared by many people and cannot explain Hitler's ascendancy by themselves.
You wrote, "Economic genius? Hardly. It is true that German economy grew rapidly under Hitler, but it was almost exclusively a war economy. He was building a prototype industrial military complex, inspired not by his genius, but by his big hero, Benito Mussolini."
Hitler by far overshadowed Mussolini. Yes, it was primarily a war economy, but the point is that it worked. Many countries have simply exhausted themselves running a war economy. War is hardly a magic ticket to prosperity; on the contrary, it consumes vast resources without re-investing them. Has the Iraq/Afghanistan war created prosperity for the USA? Not at all!
You wrote, "Economic genius? Hardly. It is true that German economy grew rapidly under Hitler, but it was almost exclusively a war economy. He was building a prototype industrial military complex, inspired not by his genius, but by his big hero, Benito Mussolini."
Hitler by far overshadowed Mussolini. Yes, it was primarily a war economy, but the point is that it worked. Many countries have simply exhausted themselves running a war economy. War is hardly a magic ticket to prosperity; on the contrary, it consumes vast resources without re-investing them. Has the Iraq/Afghanistan war created prosperity for the USA? Not at all!
You wrote:
"More importantly, it was the industrial leaders of the time who were in favour of fascism and strong, centralized, corporate type state. And they were ready to support (finance) any such project, ..."
Perhaps so, but why did they choose to finance Hitler, rather than any number of other people, many of whom had experience and connections in politics and economics? Hitler had an astonishing ability to convince anyone that he was on their side. An amazing number of liberals and left-wingers supported him for a long time.
"More importantly, it was the industrial leaders of the time who were in favour of fascism and strong, centralized, corporate type state. And they were ready to support (finance) any such project, ..."
Perhaps so, but why did they choose to finance Hitler, rather than any number of other people, many of whom had experience and connections in politics and economics? Hitler had an astonishing ability to convince anyone that he was on their side. An amazing number of liberals and left-wingers supported him for a long time.
""How to Get Away With Torture" says washingtonpost.com... Does it take a genius to set up and run Guantánamo? Are we, an incredible number of us, being fooled... again..?"
Well, yes. I add Karl Rove to the list of evil geniuses, or at least, to the list of very bright evil people.
Well, yes. I add Karl Rove to the list of evil geniuses, or at least, to the list of very bright evil people.
It doesn't take a genius to set up and run Guantanomo, it takes a genius to do that and numerous other things and get away with every last one of them.
PS Why should your opinion have to be humble 
No one's point of view should be marginalized just cos we are all biased and subjective--it's a human thing.
No one's point of view should be marginalized just cos we are all biased and subjective--it's a human thing.
Yeah. I forgot to make my remarks humble or opinionated. Just the facts.
Seriously, genius is cognitive (whether artistic or mathematical). It's a gift. Mental illness (wherein evil may reside) is not -- it's a deficit. Obviously both can and do coexist. Some mental illnesses make people do evil things. Add in genius and you have an evil genius. But I guess then the question for me is always whether these evil-doers are more sinned-against than sinning. I'm just grateful not to be a pedophile or something that people hate themselves for and can't be stopped except by life-long incarceration. In that case, I'd say the humane thing to do would be to give me the lethal injection. It's not as if they chose to be pedophiles or can control their impulses. So I hear. And of course I feel for the victims. But that doesn't mean I can't feel for the villains as well.
So is it the behavior that's evil or the people?
And I know this sounds dangerously close to churches who love gay people while hating homosexuality. The difference is that being gay isn't evil, according to the APA, whose opinions are anything but humble.
Did we ever define evil in this thread? I forget.
Seriously, genius is cognitive (whether artistic or mathematical). It's a gift. Mental illness (wherein evil may reside) is not -- it's a deficit. Obviously both can and do coexist. Some mental illnesses make people do evil things. Add in genius and you have an evil genius. But I guess then the question for me is always whether these evil-doers are more sinned-against than sinning. I'm just grateful not to be a pedophile or something that people hate themselves for and can't be stopped except by life-long incarceration. In that case, I'd say the humane thing to do would be to give me the lethal injection. It's not as if they chose to be pedophiles or can control their impulses. So I hear. And of course I feel for the victims. But that doesn't mean I can't feel for the villains as well.
So is it the behavior that's evil or the people?
And I know this sounds dangerously close to churches who love gay people while hating homosexuality. The difference is that being gay isn't evil, according to the APA, whose opinions are anything but humble.
Did we ever define evil in this thread? I forget.
Bev:
How can evil be subjective? Does that mean that if I didn't think that torturing babies just for fun wasn't evil, it wouldn't be?
Irina, if you didn't think torturing babies was wrong, it means it wouldn't be evil to you. It would still be evil to me and I would act accordingly. If you lived in a society where most thought it was evil and would punish you, you would either (a) learn to think of it as evil (b) learn to hide it or (c) get caught and suffer the consequences.
I define evil subjectively, thought my own standards, values and experiences. It's evil to me if it uses others a objects, or a means to your own ends, and especially if it hurts them for your own gain. It's good to me if it cultivates compassion and awareness of our connection to each other and the greater whole. That's just a quick and dirty summary of my own values and worldview. YMMV. Societies tend to have a collective version of that, though if my standards are different from that of another culture, I keep mine and don't care what people say about my ignorance for judging what I could not possibly understand from the outside. I will try to understand the other culture and all that, but that doesn't mean I will give up my subjective view that beating up people who are weaker than you (like women or monks) is wrong. It's my perspective and I am keeping it (and acting on it when I can).
I define evil subjectively, thought my own standards, values and experiences. It's evil to me if it uses others a objects, or a means to your own ends, and especially if it hurts them for your own gain. It's good to me if it cultivates compassion and awareness of our connection to each other and the greater whole. That's just a quick and dirty summary of my own values and worldview. YMMV. Societies tend to have a collective version of that, though if my standards are different from that of another culture, I keep mine and don't care what people say about my ignorance for judging what I could not possibly understand from the outside. I will try to understand the other culture and all that, but that doesn't mean I will give up my subjective view that beating up people who are weaker than you (like women or monks) is wrong. It's my perspective and I am keeping it (and acting on it when I can).
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar