Why Good and Bad Can't Really Exist

Originally posted by scratchmane

Originally posted by The GUT
You are scary as hell, scratchmane.

With that kind of truly unsupportable thinking one could excuse their own reprehensible behavior for just about anything...and I suspect that's the motive for most who embrace this society damaging philosophy.

Is that thinking really unsupportable? How so? Still haven't presented a coherent case that it is, except perhaps that it makes you feel uncomfortable, or so it would seem to me

edit on 1-3-2011 by scratchmane because: Redundant comment

Yes, it is truly unsupportable. Can you tell me where you received this information that we all agreed to our experiences, however deplorable, on this earth?

And if you can tell me that, can you then tell me where 'they' got this information? Did their subconscious make it up during meditation or some such?

And, think about it for a minute, where would that leave free will? And how come we all struggle with decisions that could've gone either way in this life? If it was all pre-agreed and/or pre-ordained, then where does decision making fit in.

It's your theory that has a problem with coherency, not mine. Word.

reply to post by The GUT


Does free will actually exist?
Who is driving the dreambus?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by The GUT

 

Does free will actually exist?

Just offhand, I'd say that the fact that I've changed my mind multiple times and on numerous issues would be a starting point for the argument that free will does indeed exist.

Who is driving the dreambus?

Some craaaaazy ass bus driver if my dreams are any indication.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
So you do not have a bad day when they come in take you to a camp beat you and starve you.

that is just part of life as we know it.

So if it's part of life as we know it, why worry and make yourself suffer that much more? Some people would be calmer than others in a situation like that.

reply to post by bsbray11


To better understand your perspective and where you are coming from, bsb;

Do you view it that since they are mutually exclusive that they do not exist, or that they do not exist separate from one another?

How does the inherent dualistic nature make such things "not exist" instead of "exist?" It would seem that it would lead one to think more along the lines of night/day existing as a total system, and not as separately defined concepts. It would also seem that by saying something "doesnt exist," it is falling into the either/or dualistic trap that such a thought process is trying to escape. But im guessing i just misunderstand the story you are weaving

Do you view thoughts and perceptions as part of the universe?

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Some of the posters are coming from the position that good/bad do not exist outside of your own thoughts, that they are just value judgements. The ability to do this, IMHO, is one of the things that separates us from animals though admittedly I cannot ask an animal what it is thinking and sometimes I swear I can see shame on my dogs face
This way of thinking basically does away with the idea of absolutes, the bible does not bother to try to prove absolutes but Plato does.
In Cecilofs reply to my last post he did mention how certain (I did not say bad) acts bring undesirable consequences and other acts (I did not say good) bring desirable consequences; I believe this also only I label these acts as good/bad but then who is to say what is desirable/undesirable.
The biblical story of Joseph kinda reminds me of the farmer story, of which a couple of versions have been posted on this thread, "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good"
Much of this has to do with simple perception the western mind when presented with a marble must hit it with a hammer label the "parts" & glue it back together; breaking your leg as an isolated event is bad not being conscripted into the army as an isolated event is good other cultures see things more as a whole not erroroneous IMHO just different.

Originally posted by sinohptik
Do you view it that since they are mutually exclusive that they do not exist, or that they do not exist separate from one another?

They're a perspective and they're as "real" as you think they are, but not any realer. "Good" and "bad" don't exist "out there," they only exist inside your head. And if you believe one is "out there" then you must believe the other is also "out there" and so you create the expectation of seeing both, and of course you will get plenty of opportunities to exercise your ability to perceive things through a colored lens.

How does the inherent dualistic nature make such things "not exist" instead of "exist?"

What you decide is good or bad will continue to exist in your head so long as you choose to see things that way. "Good" and "bad" don't exist in the fact that no given thing can be proven to be inherently good or bad. Some judging being has to come along and start assigning labels.

It would also seem that by saying something "doesnt exist," it is falling into the either/or dualistic trap that such a thought process is trying to escape.

Using words also implies duality, since every word represents a distinction of one apparent thing apart from everything else, but trying to express an idea without them would be more difficult.

Do you view thoughts and perceptions as part of the universe?

Yes, and probably the only substantial thing about the universe.

As for the first part of your reply, can i assume you are speaking solely for yourself when you are speaking about by using the word "you?" To be blunt, i wasnt asking about your commentary on what you perceive my perspective to be, i was asking how you view the world since that is the only place our opinions on such things have relevance

Originally posted by bsbray11
Using words also implies duality, since every word represents a distinction of one apparent thing apart from everything else, but trying to express an idea without them would be more difficult.

the inherent duality of words is obvious i am asking about the concept you hold behind your words. So, can you use some other words to better elucidate your individual perspective? why do the individual systems lose "existence" when it is recognized that they are part of a larger binary system? What changes other than our perspective on "what is?"

Yes, and probably the only substantial thing about the universe.

Very interesting. What do you feel would happen if humans, and their resulting thoughts and perspectives, did not exist anymore? To clarify, do you feel our perspectives give night/day meaning or existence, perhaps even both?

Sorry but they do:

You cannot have up without down,
You cannot have left without right,
You cannot have boy without girl,
You cannot have day without Night.

Coke is no better then Pepsi,
Fat is no better then thin,
Good is no better then Bad.

Everything just is, and is meant to be Experienced. (in my opinion)

Diversity of Opposites. I would not want to dress or think like anyone but myself.
Everything on this planet is based upon:
Perception / Perspective
Ideology / Idealism

Your perception is not mine, nor is your perspective.
Your Ideology is not my Ideology, nor is your Idealism my Idealism.

Good luck with your thread.

Originally posted by sinohptik
As for the first part of your reply, can i assume you are speaking solely for yourself when you are speaking about by using the word "you?"

Where I come from "you" is used generally. It could be me, you, anyone.

To be blunt, i wasnt asking about your commentary on what you perceive my perspective to be, i was asking how you view the world since that is the only place our opinions on such things have relevance

I believe what I post. My "opinion" on what constitutes "good" and "bad" is described in the OP. What else do you want my opinion on?

i am asking about the concept you hold behind your words. So, can you use some other words to better elucidate your individual perspective? why do the individual systems lose "existence" when it is recognized that they are part of a larger binary system? What changes other than our perspective on "what is?"

Nothing changes other than the perspective, but I think most people already agree that just because someone believes something doesn't make it true for everyone else. Therefore just because someone's perspective is that something exists, does not mean it actually must exist or even mean anything at all to anyone other than that person. That's why scientists attempt to describe an "objective" reality that is completely separate from their subjective experiences, whether it's actually possible or not, because they have already realized the arbitrariness of their own perceptions. It's a personal choice of perspective, that's all. One view seems to encompass a more holistic understanding than the other, but whether you want a wider view or a narrower one is also not inherently "good" or "bad" but just a choice.

What do you feel would happen if humans, and their resulting thoughts and perspectives, did not exist anymore?

That's like asking me what would happen if you divide a number by zero. I couldn't tell you. If your human perception didn't exist then who would even be asking the question?

To clarify, do you feel our perspectives give night/day meaning or existence, perhaps even both?

You start with a thing. Call it the universe, Tao, whatever. Then we start picking it into parts and giving them labels. They still add up to a integrated whole ("universe," whatever) and always have, and that has been the common connection between everything all along. It doesn't matter whether or not you analyze thing into tiny parts and give them names. I think the naming process will only reveal more about the person doing the naming than about what they are referring to. Night and day don't start and stop like a switch being thrown, but meld into each other like a spectrum or like the seasons weave into each other. There is dawn and dusk too, and constant changing of brightness in between. But telling you all of this is pointless since if you REALLY wanted to know what day and night were like, you just go outside and experience it.

Haven't seen you post a thread in the philosophy section for awhile Bsbray. Good to see you back. A good question. You say that good and bad do not exist. Pain/fear (emotionally and physically) I would say really makes what good and bad what they stand for opposites. But since good and bad technically do not exist, does that make the action “right”. Right and wrong don’t exist then as well. To say that nothing exists with your methodology. But we still exist and stuff exists. We give meaning to things, but reality still exists, and since we have reality, information must be processed and right/wrong, good and bad are made into meanings. Even though there is a subjective amount of criticism about this, wouldn’t you say child pedophilia, is bad? Even though it might not be considered “bad” The action that is happening to the two individuals that take in qualia, to one individual (the kid) it is causing emotional and physical pain. Wouldn’t that make it wrong and bad? Now I am just talking to much. Good to see you again on here

Originally posted by bsbray11
I believe what I post. My "opinion" on what constitutes "good" and "bad" is described in the OP. What else do you want my opinion on?

i know you believe what you post however, i inevitably see the world differently than you. to better understand where you are coming from, i ask questions about your perspective instead of assuming. When one using the term "you" as you have, it lends to the idea that you, bsb, are speaking on how i, sinohptik, see the world. When i am speaking about my perspective, i tend to prefer using "i" or "we," so knowing that, it probably makes it a bit clearer to you where i am coming from. Its not a big deal, either way!

Nothing changes other than the perspective, but I think most people already agree that just because someone believes something doesn't make it true for everyone else. Therefore just because someone's perspective is that something exists, does not mean it actually must exist or even mean anything at all to anyone other than that person. That's why scientists attempt to describe an "objective" reality that is completely separate from their subjective experiences, whether it's actually possible or not, because they have already realized the arbitrariness of their own perceptions. It's a personal choice of perspective, that's all. One view seems to encompass a more holistic understanding than the other, but whether you want a wider view or a narrower one is also not inherently "good" or "bad" but just a choice.

Thank you for clarifying.

That's like asking me what would happen if you divide a number by zero. I couldn't tell you. If your human perception didn't exist then who would even be asking the question?

What an incredibly interesting response! my own answer would simply be that everything would be exactly the same as it is now, just without humans and their perspective i do not necessarily feel our perspective and thoughts drive the universe anymore than trees do. So, in that context, the question is very similar to asking "if a tree falls in the woods, with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" I would say the answer is "yes" its just that it isnt heard by anyone. the sound waves still disperse, but they do not make contact with a human ear. I dont feel things need to be perceived by us to exist. Does this better clarify the question i was asking?

You start with a thing. Call it the universe, Tao, whatever. Then we start picking it into parts and giving them labels. They still add up to a integrated whole ("universe," whatever) and always have, and that has been the common connection between everything all along. It doesn't matter whether or not you analyze thing into tiny parts and give them names. I think the naming process will only reveal more about the person doing the naming than about what they are referring to. Night and day don't start and stop like a switch being thrown, but meld into each other like a spectrum or like the seasons weave into each other. There is dawn and dusk too, and constant changing of brightness in between.

Once again though, the words are completely meaningless, i am trying to understand your conceptualization behind the verbalization. do you understand what i mean by that? you chose to use the words "dont exist" when referring to the peak and valley. the way i see it, the gradient you speak of has its simile within a sinusoidal wave. Things are obviously not on a "switch" for such things... why would you choose such words? However, the fact that the peak and valley are connected through varying of degrees of change doesnt negate the fact that they are still there. Another way to say it is, if one were to go outside in the middle of the night, they would not mistake it for the middle of the day. either way, the question was to better understand your perspective on how you perceive the peaks and valleys to cease existing when the rest of the sinusoidal wave is realized. Perhaps it all stems to the idea that i am misunderstanding your application of the word "exist." It seems a strange choice to me for reasons i try to illustrate by discussion.

But telling you all of this is pointless since if you REALLY wanted to know what day and night were like, you just go outside and experience it.

This conversation is not to be taught by you about duality/non-duality, it is to learn about your perspective, specifically. i have been well versed on non-duality for... a decade or so. and that was after intense "study" for several odd years. It is to learn someone elses limited perspective on something beyond either of our comprehension. Such a thing can not be done without having a conversation with you.

Originally posted by sinohptik
However, the fact that the peak and valley are connected through varying of degrees of change doesnt negate the fact that they are still there.

Right, it only negates the objectivity of their concrete distinction from one another.

Another way to say it is, if one were to go outside in the middle of the night, they would not mistake it for the middle of the day.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean anything, because this is taking place entirely within the context of a day/night paradigm. If you didn't distinguish you'd have no need to compare.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Of course not, but that doesn't mean anything, because this is taking place entirely within the context of a day/night paradigm. If you didn't distinguish you'd have no need to compare.

To me it indicates that the different parts of the wave/cycle/duality have distinct properties as individual (but not separate) parts of the same system. I feel our dualistic concepts are based in the idea that in the physical universe, there are balances, "ebbs and flows," and "ups and downs." Such cycles seem to not only be present but they drive movement and even "creation" and "life" itself. From the cycle of night/day resulting from the earths rotation to the cycle of moon moving the currents of the oceans. The peak and valley are not separate from each other, but the movement between the two is like a heart beat. i do not feel such balances necessarily have to apply to things beyond this physical, material universe though.

Our perspectives of "good" and "bad" specifically seem to generally be subjective, though can commonly be based in self-preservation of some kind. I think the important thing for a perspective on the matter is that the one does not exist within these things but witnesses them. Doing that, experientially, seems to lead to growth of the perspective similar to a plant towards light. I think we are saying the same thing there.

But, i also think that to get a certain event to increase in possibility, specific actions and movements can be viewed as "good" and others "bad" with individual properties that will affect the outcome differently. How i see this can be visualized by "moving to stand up." At its basic, all that is required is to actually stand up, but there are successful and unsuccessful (good and bad) ways to go about this. The good "movement" would be to just stand up! The bad "movement" would be to fall down.. "Learning" based in this way seems to be present in everything from humans to plants. Plants will grow in the general direction of sunlight, or "good," "successful." As dualistic/cycle based beings ourselves (but perhaps not in totality ), i think being able to learn from this movement allows us to more effectively use our finite time.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by scratchmane

Originally posted by The GUT
You are scary as hell, scratchmane.

With that kind of truly unsupportable thinking one could excuse their own reprehensible behavior for just about anything...and I suspect that's the motive for most who embrace this society damaging philosophy.

Is that thinking really unsupportable? How so? Still haven't presented a coherent case that it is, except perhaps that it makes you feel uncomfortable, or so it would seem to me

edit on 1-3-2011 by scratchmane because: Redundant comment

Yes, it is truly unsupportable. Can you tell me where you received this information that we all agreed to our experiences, however deplorable, on this earth?

And if you can tell me that, can you then tell me where 'they' got this information? Did their subconscious make it up during meditation or some such?

I see where you took a wrong turn I never said that this is true, so I haven't 'received' any information from anywhere.
I simply asked what the problem would be under such a scenario...(TBC...)

Originally posted by The GUT
And, think about it for a minute, where would that leave free will? And how come we all struggle with decisions that could've gone either way in this life? If it was all pre-agreed and/or pre-ordained, then where does decision making fit in.

One 'problem' is perhaps that free will has no place in such a scenario, nor decision making, at least there is no free will in the body as it were.

I gave the movie analogy earlier.

You say that people will abuse this...but if the scenario is correct then it would be preordained that they will abuse it.

So is it the freewill bit that gets to you?

reply to post by scratchmane


The thought of no free will terrifies a lot of people, most people. But it can not be proved that there is free will.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by scratchmane

Is that thinking really unsupportable? How so? Still haven't presented a coherent case that it is, except perhaps that it makes you feel uncomfortable, or so it would seem to me

Yes, it is truly unsupportable. Can you tell me where you received this information that we all agreed to our experiences, however deplorable, on this earth?

And if you can tell me that, can you then tell me where 'they' got this information? Did their subconscious make it up during meditation or some such?

I see where you took a wrong turn

I never said that this is true, so I haven't 'received' any information from anywhere.
I simply asked what the problem would be under such a scenario...(TBC...)

And you, it seems, took a U-Turn into on-coming traffic. I'm certainly not willing to dismiss the morality issue on the basis of 'guess-erology' scratchmane.

I'm not willing to excuse my actions & selfish excesses for a "feel good" philosophy based on such weasel words as "if" or "perhaps." It's too big an issue for that and certainly calls into question the motives of anyone who is willing to accept your philosophy.

Originally posted by The GUT
And, think about it for a minute, where would that leave free will? And how come we all struggle with decisions that could've gone either way in this life? If it was all pre-agreed and/or pre-ordained, then where does decision making fit in.

Originally posted by scratchmane
One 'problem' is perhaps that free will has no place in such a scenario, nor decision making, at least there is no free will in the body as it were.

I gave the movie analogy earlier.

You say that people will abuse this...but if the scenario is correct then it would be preordained that they will abuse it.

So is it the freewill bit that gets to you?

See, there you go with the "if" word and "scenario" again and we're talking about issues here that span the gamut from selfishness to child abuse to torture, etc.

Freewill does "get" me and it should you as well. It's the starting point for anyone who seriously wants to contemplate this issue intellectually.

To dismiss it with your "ifs" shows an unwillingness to hold yourself accountable. It's obvious to me that you are looking for excuses, and you've "hypothesized" a situation that scratches your itching ears with what you want to hear.

I've given you some healthy food for thought. You can reject it and have the illusion of keeping your POV intact. Or you can re-read your own words, go look in the mirror, drop your feel-good pretense, and grow as a person.

I sincerely wish you the best and that you choose wisely.

reply to post by The GUT


I wrote this on another thread:
Free will is an illusion, you may think you have a choice but what decides the choice you eventually make? Learned responses, learned behavior, like a ball rolling. Or gods will.
Either way where is the 'you', that has the choice

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by The GUT

 

I wrote this on another thread:
Free will is an illusion, you may think you have a choice but what decides the choice you eventually make? Learned responses, learned behavior, like a ball rolling. Or gods will.

Either way where is the 'you', that has the choice

Well, at least you're thinking about it and have an intellectual argument not based on "ifs." What you call "learned responses" & "learned behavior"--however--I see as "lessons learned" in the ability to reason.

And 'reasoning' is a function of, and a good argument for, the concept of free will.

"Learned responses" & "learned behavior" sounds more like the function we assign to animals (Think Pavlov here) than the degree of consciousness & self-awareness that we humans have.

reply to post by The GUT


It all depends on what you think you are. After inquiring into the nature of what you are, you may discover that you have been running on unconscious learned behavior. No more than a programmed machine, Pavlovs dog. This experiment wasn't done to see how dogs can be trained!!!!
The television is an example of software being downloaded into this human machine.
After inquiring into what you are, you may discover that you are not a machine and can be conscious that you are conscious.