Growth as a individual questions of evil and good

[Stargazer_07]

Hello everyone, I have always looked back at my introduction essay as a form of milestone in the growth of myself. Please excuse me for posting twice under the same thread. If you view my first essay this current post should shed some light on the growth. I believe there are individuals with both good and evil intentions when they view our posts. I know not everything on there is accurate (I lied) and sorry for the wait but, it served multiple purposes now that I look back at it.

One, I was really fascinated by the experiences of others and due to my experience not being like others I skewed the experience. This served as a form of self defense due to my knowledge of the metaphysical.

Second, many of us are aware of our environment in regards to morality and the fight against evil. People who have bad intentions use any sort of leverage they can including factual information on individual experiences. (Excuse me for the paranoia due to my experiences with the outside world and as a symbolic phrase the awakening of my third eye.)

I believe some of these substances have the potential to serve humanity for good in general(not the greater good). I also believe individuals can abuse these substances and come into contact with less than good beings. For example, I'm not sure how accurate this information is and I realize I did not properly site the source. Somewhere online or in a book I picked up information regarding aztec sacrifice and the use of psilocybin mushrooms to come into contact with entities. When in contact with these beings the individuals claimed that they were told to sacrifice human lives to bring a positive food supply the current season along with other wishes. I find it hard to contemplate how I never came into contact with beings but, If I did I would not want to come into contact with beings similar to the Aztecs.

I know I am being lazy and can find the information which I plan to but, I'm using this as an opportunity to better connect with the community gradually. I plan to visit the space again but, I am also cautious enough to realize there are less than friendly beings.

My question is has anyone ever come into contact with these more trustworthy entities and if so has anyone bothered to ask if individuals are born evil or good? Could it be it's as simple as nature and nurture influence our actions and only good and evil actions exist? In other words does evil manifest itself in humans and that's the cause behind human suffering worldwide at the individual and mass level?

I hope this is an addition to getting to know me along with my introduction essay. Thank you, for your time and I hope to add on to the knowledge of the community in a more than cautious manner.

This is a reference to the beginning foundation to my beliefs. If you're paranoid like me about hacking you can simply google search "Stanford good and evil" and follow the link from there.

The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[xss27]

My question is has anyone ever come into contact with these more trustworthy entities and if so has anyone bothered to ask if individuals are born evil or good? Could it be it's as simple as nature and nurture influence our actions and only good and evil actions exist? In other words does evil manifest itself in humans and that's the cause behind human suffering worldwide at the individual and mass level?

People who suggest others are born inherently evil irritate me with their complete failure of imagination. It's lazy thinking and rationale to excuse having to really examine their own environment (outer and inner) with any effort; much easier to just place the blame on someone else, to externalize. The fact is we are the environment of other people.. our own ignorance of ourselves is the root cause of all the suffering in the world today.

It doesn't matter how virtuous you believe you are or how much you give to charity, or conversely how many people you kill. Neither good nor evil exist beyond conceptions in the human imagination. Certain acts can affect our psychology in an unhealthy manner - drug use being one of them. But it's not evil in itself, just not necessarily wise to do and not conducive to lifting ignorance.

 

[Stargazer_07]

For the most part I completely agree with that reasoning; some part of me doesn't want to believe that's the case though.

I agree if your stance were a certain then it would deter humans from using an excuse and hopefully motivate the elite to help bring changes for the masses (because ultimately then can bring that change on a massive scale). What I mean to say is most of us are aware that a great portion of how adolescents interact with others is from learning, a big portion of that learning comes from media which directly or indirectly influences behavior. If greed is the root of why cancer causing substances are in our food or why using others for the sole purpose of pleasure is attractive in the music industry.
My question would be is greed evil? For example, is our consciousness a figment of our imagination since it's not something tangible? This of course is under the assumption that our conscious is not simple collection of neurotransmitters, and electrical impulses.
I agree it's lazy thinking but, what's your take on the Aztecs claiming that entities suggested to sacrifice one human life in exchange for the greater good?
Could it be that those entities may be a reflection of ourselves and express themselves in what we refer to as sin?
Thank you op for your input I have had difficulty having these discussions with my peers and I realize my debating and communication skills do not come up to par with some of the individuals in this forum. I realize I am dumb and ignorant and know nothing for certain as a philosopher once said. I seek this knowledge to better myself and those closest around as I have come to give up on humanity as depressing as that sounds.

 

[pineninja]

Hey stargazer.

There seems to be a fair bit of word play going on in your head when perhaps its a conclusion of definition that you need.
Is greed something that always results in evil?
Is it greedy to be nice?

And most importantly imo without the evil would you know love.




The longer I stare at one side.
The more I know of the other.
Getting upset at cruelty.
I don't know why I bother.

No singularity exists.
War without peace.
Love without hate.
Action without fate.

This is what it's all about.
Never to be stationary.
Not to be confused with complacency.
Realising Yin is Yang's clout.

We been pushed from the Centre point of the pendulum.
Occasionally meeting in the middle.
Telling each others experiences but always in riddle.

With each and every tick.
If one side is healthy.
The other must be sick.

So it would seem that to wish away the evil.
To know what's on the other side.
Would leave us caught in the middle.
With no subjectivity to imbibe.

The futures middle is not promised.
Nor has it ever been.
It's for you to make it possible.
To make peace easier to see.

 

[theAlkēmist]

Well from my research into the esoteric and what I’ve learnt as a Rosicrucian, evil and good are just subjective realities people experience. Nothing is inherently good or evil. If you imagine everything in existence (even the spiritual realms) is a manifestation from the thought patterns of God (I use God as an archetype for the reality creating collective consciousness ‘the oneness’). If we take the God head as being represented by the number 1, and we use the golden ratio (phi, or Fibonacci sequence, which is found absolutely everywhere in the micro and macrocosm) we get 2, 4, 8, etc, this directly represents ancient deities (I can explain if you want). If we compare this to the Kabbalah tree of life we find as the numbers multiply towards the bottom (the physical realm) the thoughts get diluted with the increase in number, the original thought form isn’t good or evil, and this dilution leads towards more free will.

Free will is more so ignorance and wisdom rather then good and evil (because one persons good is another’s evil and visa versa). There’s also order and chaos, very different from good and evil. These are man made binary labels that change with the collective morality of society, what we see as good and evil constantly changes, as history shows us. People can make an evil or good choice, but those are mostly from ignorance or wisdom.

Nearly all our plastics to make chips for smart devices comes from a mineral mined in Africa by child slave labour, leading to child punishment such as starvation or child sex slavery. By buying these products we are indirectly supporting this. Are we evil or ignorant? I’m sure when they were burning wiches alive in medieval times they thought this was good, now we see this as evil. Same thing with the Jewish holicaust, slavery, etc.

Personally I would say if you still eat red meat (it’s the largest contributor to global warming and Amazon deforestation) you are not evil (even though it’s inderictly causing massive destruction so fits the evil model perfectly), i would just say you are still ignorant about this issue. **not saying I’m perfect lol**

See what I mean? There’s no such thing as good or evil, these are man made ideologies.

 

[dragonrider]

Evil people...i don't know. Probably not. But evil acts, yes, the DEFINATELY do exist.

If people live together and form a society, they will need rules. And in very primitive societies, those rules probably occur naturally, without endless debates taking place.

But eventually, people will need to talk about rules and sanctions etc, as societies grow more complex, and also because maybe some of the existing rules are not very practical and can be improved upon.

If rules are being discussed, then eventually it will become clear that there are actions that simply cannot be tolerated. Rational agents will agree that these rules will have to apply to every single individual, including themselves, for a society to be stable and peacefull coexistance to be possible.

So in other words: it is not rational for people, not to, for instance, condemn murder. AND it is not rational for people, to expect not to be condemned, when they would decide commit such an act anyway.

For me, that is sufficient to call such an act "evil". After all, it is doing something of wich you clearly understand that it cannot be tolerated and that you in all likelyhood would not tolerate if someone else where doing it instead.

However, if you define "evil" as something like a "thou shalt not" type of devine command, then i would agree that it is hard to argue that such a thing realy does exist.

I like to believe that it is weakness or indeed ignorance, rather than an evil character, that causes people to do evil things. But maybe that is only wishfull thinking. It does take "agency" away from people.

 

[theAlkēmist]

Evil people...i don't know. Probably not. But evil acts, yes, the DEFINATELY do exist.

If people live together and form a society, they will need rules. And in very primitive societies, those rules probably occur naturally, without endless debates taking place.

But eventually, people will need to talk about rules and sanctions etc, as societies grow more complex, and also because maybe some of the existing rules are not very practical and can be improved upon.

If rules are being discussed, then eventually it will become clear that there are actions that simply cannot be tolerated. Rational agents will agree that these rules will have to apply to every single individual, including themselves, for a society to be stable and peacefull coexistance to be possible.

So in other words: it is not rational for people, not to, for instance, condemn murder. AND it is not rational for people, to expect not to be condemned, when they would decide commit such an act anyway.

For me, that is sufficient to call such an act "evil". After all, it is doing something of wich you clearly understand that it cannot be tolerated and that you in all likelyhood would not tolerate if someone else where doing it instead.

However, if you define "evil" as something like a "thou shalt not" type of devine command, then i would agree that it is hard to argue that such a thing realy does exist.

I like to believe that it is weakness or indeed ignorance, rather than an evil character, that causes people to do evil things. But maybe that is only wishfull thinking. It does take "agency" away from people.

Well what do you define as an evil action then, it sounds to me like purposely knowingly causing harm to another sentient being? (Correct me if I’m wrong). But here lies the problem, what about the egotistical superiority complex? Generally when humans see themselves as above another race we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering, such as how Jews, blacks were treated, and animals currently. Evil and good are man made labels. What about an evil action for the greater good? I should think this is a wise or ignorant action not evil.

I had a bit of childhood trauma, at the time I thought this was evil. But it has developed me psychologically in ways I’m extremely greatfull for. So were these actions inherently evil?

 

[FranLover]

Well first of all I think you are very smart and that an amazing discussion is being held here. I know I am being lazy and can find the information which I plan to but, I'm using this as an opportunity to better connect with the community gradually. Yes all knowledge can be discovered alone, but discovering it together is a different thing.

Evil is the persuit of power. If a tribe becomes power hungry, as the aztecs were, they become corrupt. This is a fact. Corruption is being authority and submiting to authority. Love, what is it? Is it the opposite of evil or is it something completley different? Is love not the unknown and evil all that is known?

Schindler (Schindler's list) is a great example of someone who did good by not submiting to authority but to natural law. His path is unkown, unlike the path of generals who get to power by force, his path is his alone, not walked on, not deliniated, by anyone else.

 

[dragonrider]

Evil people...i don't know. Probably not. But evil acts, yes, the DEFINATELY do exist.

If people live together and form a society, they will need rules. And in very primitive societies, those rules probably occur naturally, without endless debates taking place.

But eventually, people will need to talk about rules and sanctions etc, as societies grow more complex, and also because maybe some of the existing rules are not very practical and can be improved upon.

If rules are being discussed, then eventually it will become clear that there are actions that simply cannot be tolerated. Rational agents will agree that these rules will have to apply to every single individual, including themselves, for a society to be stable and peacefull coexistance to be possible.

So in other words: it is not rational for people, not to, for instance, condemn murder. AND it is not rational for people, to expect not to be condemned, when they would decide commit such an act anyway.

For me, that is sufficient to call such an act "evil". After all, it is doing something of wich you clearly understand that it cannot be tolerated and that you in all likelyhood would not tolerate if someone else where doing it instead.

However, if you define "evil" as something like a "thou shalt not" type of devine command, then i would agree that it is hard to argue that such a thing realy does exist.

I like to believe that it is weakness or indeed ignorance, rather than an evil character, that causes people to do evil things. But maybe that is only wishfull thinking. It does take "agency" away from people.

Well what do you define as an evil action then, it sounds to me like purposely knowingly causing harm to another sentient being? (Correct me if I’m wrong). But here lies the problem, what about the egotistical superiority complex? Generally when humans see themselves as above another race we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering, such as how Jews, blacks were treated, and animals currently. Evil and good are man made labels. What about an evil action for the greater good? I should think this is a wise or ignorant action not evil.

I had a bit of childhood trauma, at the time I thought this was evil. But it has developed me psychologically in ways I’m extremely greatfull for. So were these actions inherently evil?

But the thing is that it's a false assumption that one race has a superiority over the other race.

You say "we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering" but i don't think that is entirely correct.
The view "this is okay to do" can only be sustained when you, as a society, cultivate ignorance. When you force people into believing lies.

The moment people start to realise that a certain action does indeed inflict massive suffering (and are in the position to speak up), you will notice that they will also start to question this practice.

They know that, the moment you know what is happening, and you are able to do something about it, allowing it to happen is like opening the gates of hell.

In game theory and economics there's this thing called nash-point, wich is a sort of optimum. It represents the ideal outcome of a negotiation.
It is also, more or less, almost the natural outcome of actions based on empathy.

It can be proven, that any deviation from that point, will automatically lead to a less ideal situation. In economics, it means a less efficient economy and therefore a decline in general wealth. In biology, it means a less stable, more vulnerable ecosystem. In behavioral biology, it means a less stable group. Likely with more violent conflicts over dominance, a less healthy population, and so on.

We have a deeply rooted instinct for these things, wich is reflected by our moral sentiments. All primates demonstrate to have these. Even non-primate monkeys, and other highly social animals.

 

[theAlkēmist]

Well first of all I think you are very smart and that an amazing discussion is being held here. I know I am being lazy and can find the information which I plan to but, I'm using this as an opportunity to better connect with the community gradually. Yes all knowledge can be discovered alone, but discovering it together is a different thing.

Evil is the persuit of power. If a tribe becomes power hungry, as the aztecs were, they become corrupt. This is a fact. Corruption is being authority and submiting to authority. Love, what is it? Is it the opposite of evil or is it something completley different? Is love not the unknown and evil all that is known?

Schindler (Schindler's list) is a great example of someone who did good by not submiting to authority but to natural law. His path is unkown, unlike the path of generals who get to power by force, his path is his alone, not walked on, not deliniated, by anyone else.

Well I think love is totally different and VERY subjective. In one extreme of love people can get obsessed leading to stalking and even rape, which is most likely ‘good’ for whom is in love, but ‘evil’ for the victim. You can have unconditional love and cop abuse and be severely taken of advantage of. You can have nurturing love. Even loving someone and doing what you think is best for them (which might be very evil in their eyes but virtuous in the others. Love is a huge 3d spectrum.

Power is tricky. I think that is more ego driven. I’m sure Ghadafi (or however you spell it) saw himself as virtuous, even though he did abbhorent things. I’m sure if you ask an ISIS member they will say they are the opitamy of virtuous doing God’s work. But what if you want to gain power for ‘good’, is this wrong? However, I’m positive nearly all people who have achieved great power didn’t see themselves as evil. They are more then likely ignorant of how their actions effect others. If they are aware are they then selfish, is being selfish evil? Or is the ego being in control? Is the ego evil, or does it just want to survive and cling on desperately to reality? And if it does, how come?

 

[theAlkēmist]

Evil people...i don't know. Probably not. But evil acts, yes, the DEFINATELY do exist.

If people live together and form a society, they will need rules. And in very primitive societies, those rules probably occur naturally, without endless debates taking place.

But eventually, people will need to talk about rules and sanctions etc, as societies grow more complex, and also because maybe some of the existing rules are not very practical and can be improved upon.

If rules are being discussed, then eventually it will become clear that there are actions that simply cannot be tolerated. Rational agents will agree that these rules will have to apply to every single individual, including themselves, for a society to be stable and peacefull coexistance to be possible.

So in other words: it is not rational for people, not to, for instance, condemn murder. AND it is not rational for people, to expect not to be condemned, when they would decide commit such an act anyway.

For me, that is sufficient to call such an act "evil". After all, it is doing something of wich you clearly understand that it cannot be tolerated and that you in all likelyhood would not tolerate if someone else where doing it instead.

However, if you define "evil" as something like a "thou shalt not" type of devine command, then i would agree that it is hard to argue that such a thing realy does exist.

I like to believe that it is weakness or indeed ignorance, rather than an evil character, that causes people to do evil things. But maybe that is only wishfull thinking. It does take "agency" away from people.

Well what do you define as an evil action then, it sounds to me like purposely knowingly causing harm to another sentient being? (Correct me if I’m wrong). But here lies the problem, what about the egotistical superiority complex? Generally when humans see themselves as above another race we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering, such as how Jews, blacks were treated, and animals currently. Evil and good are man made labels. What about an evil action for the greater good? I should think this is a wise or ignorant action not evil.

I had a bit of childhood trauma, at the time I thought this was evil. But it has developed me psychologically in ways I’m extremely greatfull for. So were these actions inherently evil?

But the thing is that it's a false assumption that one race has a superiority over the other race.

You say "we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering" but i don't think that is entirely correct.
The view "this is okay to do" can only be sustained when you, as a society, cultivate ignorance. When you force people into believing lies.

The moment people start to realise that a certain action does indeed inflict massive suffering (and are in the position to speak up), you will notice that they will also start to question this practice.

They know that, the moment you know what is happening, and you are able to do something about it, allowing it to happen is like opening the gates of hell.

In game theory and economics there's this thing called nash-point, wich is a sort of optimum. It represents the ideal outcome of a negotiation.
It is also, more or less, almost the natural outcome of actions based on empathy.

It can be proven, that any deviation from that point, will automatically lead to a less ideal situation. In economics, it means a less efficient economy and therefore a decline in general wealth. In biology, it means a less stable, more vulnerable ecosystem. In behavioral biology, it means a less stable group. Likely with more violent conflicts over dominance, a less healthy population, and so on.

We have a deeply rooted instinct for these things, wich is reflected by our moral sentiments. All primates demonstrate to have these. Even non-primate monkeys, and other highly social animals.

The nash-point is a rather interesting metaphor. I’ve never heard of it but it’s rather essential. I think a good analogy is we have a 50/50 world of equally distributed masacists and sadists, and one group loves to inflict pain while the other enjoys receiving it. Wouldn’t this be a ‘nash-point’ and harmonious world, yet tortured by suffering.

And you talk about ignorance of social issues leading to evil actions. I agree with evil actions but again evil is totally subjective. So in hindsight are we inherently ignorant and are working towards wisdom, making humanities actions in the long run virtuous?

 

[theAlkēmist]

Evil people...i don't know. Probably not. But evil acts, yes, the DEFINATELY do exist.

If people live together and form a society, they will need rules. And in very primitive societies, those rules probably occur naturally, without endless debates taking place.

But eventually, people will need to talk about rules and sanctions etc, as societies grow more complex, and also because maybe some of the existing rules are not very practical and can be improved upon.

If rules are being discussed, then eventually it will become clear that there are actions that simply cannot be tolerated. Rational agents will agree that these rules will have to apply to every single individual, including themselves, for a society to be stable and peacefull coexistance to be possible.

So in other words: it is not rational for people, not to, for instance, condemn murder. AND it is not rational for people, to expect not to be condemned, when they would decide commit such an act anyway.

For me, that is sufficient to call such an act "evil". After all, it is doing something of wich you clearly understand that it cannot be tolerated and that you in all likelyhood would not tolerate if someone else where doing it instead.

However, if you define "evil" as something like a "thou shalt not" type of devine command, then i would agree that it is hard to argue that such a thing realy does exist.

I like to believe that it is weakness or indeed ignorance, rather than an evil character, that causes people to do evil things. But maybe that is only wishfull thinking. It does take "agency" away from people.

Well what do you define as an evil action then, it sounds to me like purposely knowingly causing harm to another sentient being? (Correct me if I’m wrong). But here lies the problem, what about the egotistical superiority complex? Generally when humans see themselves as above another race we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering, such as how Jews, blacks were treated, and animals currently. Evil and good are man made labels. What about an evil action for the greater good? I should think this is a wise or ignorant action not evil.

I had a bit of childhood trauma, at the time I thought this was evil. But it has developed me psychologically in ways I’m extremely greatfull for. So were these actions inherently evil?

But the thing is that it's a false assumption that one race has a superiority over the other race.

You say "we do not see it as evil to inflict massive suffering" but i don't think that is entirely correct.
The view "this is okay to do" can only be sustained when you, as a society, cultivate ignorance. When you force people into believing lies.

The moment people start to realise that a certain action does indeed inflict massive suffering (and are in the position to speak up), you will notice that they will also start to question this practice.

They know that, the moment you know what is happening, and you are able to do something about it, allowing it to happen is like opening the gates of hell.

In game theory and economics there's this thing called nash-point, wich is a sort of optimum. It represents the ideal outcome of a negotiation.
It is also, more or less, almost the natural outcome of actions based on empathy.

It can be proven, that any deviation from that point, will automatically lead to a less ideal situation. In economics, it means a less efficient economy and therefore a decline in general wealth. In biology, it means a less stable, more vulnerable ecosystem. In behavioral biology, it means a less stable group. Likely with more violent conflicts over dominance, a less healthy population, and so on.

We have a deeply rooted instinct for these things, wich is reflected by our moral sentiments. All primates demonstrate to have these. Even non-primate monkeys, and other highly social animals.

Don’t get me wrong I didn’t imply superiority is good at all. It’s just a historical trend.

 

[FranLover]

Oh, beautiful! lets look at this very closley. A man wants to posses a woman, exert power over her, and so the relationship turns to a triple homicide. Is that love? Surley the man calls it love in his illusion, but will one accept his delusion? Or abide to reality? In reality the man is persuing power, and will rest for nothing to achieve it, a common trait in psychopaths who enchant victims.
Love is not three dimensional, as in grey, as in something subjective. Love is not pleassure. Love is not what society has made it to be.
Persuing power for the greater good is persuing power. And power corrupts always. This is a fact. 10,0000 true crime books and biographies will reveal time and time again the truth.

 

[theAlkēmist]

Oh, beautiful! lets look at this very closley. A man wants to posses a woman, exert power over her, and so the relationship turns to a triple homicide. Is that love? Surley the man calls it love in his illusion, but will one accept his delusion? Or abide to reality? In reality the man is persuing power, and will rest for nothing to achieve it, a common trait in psychopaths who enchant victims.
Love is not three dimensional, as in grey, as in something subjective. Love is not pleassure. Love is not what society has made it to be.
Persuing power for the greater good is persuing power. And power corrupts always. This is a fact. 10,0000 true crime books and biographies will reveal time and time again the truth.

Well you have your definition of love (and I do agree with it), but many do not. Are you right and they’re wrong? And why? Because you subjectivity think so?

Regrading psychopaths, are they evil? Tortured by they’re ego? Mentally ill? Made that way by society’s structures? There was a mass shooting in Texas early last year (can’t remember which one), but the killer wrote a suicide letter where he said please examine my brain. There was a rare type of benign tumour that had grown in the empathy area (forgive me I’m no neuroscientist). After this there was speculation in the scientific community that maybe evil actions are because of brain structure. Sam Harris and Jordan Peaterson have a discussion about this and free will. They pose the hypothetical question if let’s sy you were Saddam Hussein with his exact neural structures, experiences, etc would you have a ‘choice’ to make more ethical decisions? Or would you make the same decision? And if that’s the case what is free will fundamentally, if our brain structure and experiences predictate our decisions?

 

[FranLover]

No, I do not think it is truth because I like the thought subjectivley, but rahter because its a fact, just like 2+2=4 is a fact. I would not think they are wrong and I am right because that is a psychological game with no purpose. One would understand that we walk different paths and that everyone will find theres or get severley slapped my momma earth (the laws of nature, which are facts.) Bad things will allways follow evil doers because as within so without, not my thought, but reality, observation, which is truth. The fact that the tree stands as it does with its leaves how it does and the fact of it, which is not my thought about it, but what it actually is.

I do notice that 1% of maniacs have scientifically proven degerating brains, but there are thousands of autist with no empathy who still find ways to create art, unite with animals and mother earth, and do good. So is it just that degeneration in the brain or is there something else? A self loathing, a certain pride and anger, a never ceasing thought process of self interest, self importance, violence.

When ones sees that society as a whole is all wrong and that mothers and fathers do not actually love their children, one understands that if a child of hate is born his path to evil will be made straight by a society and family which offers no love and that rewards ambition, ego, being someone, being succsesful, being a fake.

Videtapes of these maniacs during questioning reveal their true nature as they are outmanuvered almost always and what we see is they are a very sorry people and made their own decisions because that is what they like. Like one likes trees, books, and laying in bed, Richard Ramirez liked to rape women and kill them--it is that simple. Spend a day with him (read his biography, get into his head) you will see the dullness, the emptyness, complete ignorance, no spark of brilliance whatsoever!

It is my experience on Earth that people who have ego and very ugly characters might as well have a degeneration of the brain, even though science may not see the disease. The face exudes the colors of thought and one can see the oversmoking on the cheeks and the persiit of power in the eyes. Many self centered people in there 40's begin to reveal through their craziness how truly wrong they were and are in how they live their life and their thought processes which since a child had been about the self, about pride, about acheiving.

The dullness of this mind can not be better showcased thenn in the case of the disgusting Diane Downs (born August 7, 1955) is an American woman convicted of the May 1983 murder of her daughter and the attempted murders of her other two children. and the very ignorant and unfuckable Debora Green (née Jones; born February 28, 1951) is an American physician who pleaded no contest to setting a 1995 fire which burned down her family's home and killed two of her children, and to poisoning her husband with ricin with the intention of causing his death.

I think what Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are talking about is kind of silly, they might have lost the point somewhere. Saddam Hussein was a person. He is not you in some metaphorical experiment. He had his own thoughts, ideas, likes, etc. So he is not someone else ever.

Is the brain conditioned? a thousand times YES! Always will be for it is the maleable nature of the brain since time immemorial.

 

[brewster]

I'd say that, for most people, it has a Christian connotation. Evil is what's connected with the devil in one way or another. As such, I'm skeptical about it. Which, the article would say, makes me an evil-skeptic, I guess :? .
What the Stanford article does highlight very well, is how multi-faceted the term is. It can mean so many different things, one has to explain what one means by 'evil' in the first place.

My question is has anyone ever come into contact with these more trustworthy entities and if so has anyone bothered to ask if individuals are born evil or good? Could it be it's as simple as nature and nurture influence our actions and only good and evil actions exist? In other words does evil manifest itself in humans and that's the cause behind human suffering worldwide at the individual and mass level?

Hmm. I haven't used DMT before, only Shrooms, LSD and Mescaline. I have certainly experienced things I would call "entities". But I never dared to put too direct a label on them. After all, what do I see from them, what do I know from them? I might completely mis-interpret what I saw. I might mis-understand a genuinely well-intended answer as harmful act, or the other way round.
I think, evil happens when people forget the larger context. The other people, their needs and feelings. And, since we are imperfect and limited, we can't completely avoid it. We can and should do our best do minimize the mount of evil we do / contribute to, but we can't be completely 'good', only as good as possible.
So, for me, evil is a facet in a large cosmos, but not a thing 'per se'.

 

[dragonrider]

No, I do not think it is truth because I like the thought subjectivley, but rahter because its a fact, just like 2+2=4 is a fact. I would not think they are wrong and I am right because that is a psychological game with no purpose. One would understand that we walk different paths and that everyone will find theres or get severley slapped my momma earth (the laws of nature, which are facts.) Bad things will allways follow evil doers because as within so without, not my thought, but reality, observation, which is truth. The fact that the tree stands as it does with its leaves how it does and the fact of it, which is not my thought about it, but what it actually is.

I do notice that 1% of maniacs have scientifically proven degerating brains, but there are thousands of autist with no empathy who still find ways to create art, unite with animals and mother earth, and do good. So is it just that degeneration in the brain or is there something else? A self loathing, a certain pride and anger, a never ceasing thought process of self interest, self importance, violence.

When ones sees that society as a whole is all wrong and that mothers and fathers do not actually love their children, one understands that if a child of hate is born his path to evil will be made straight by a society and family which offers no love and that rewards ambition, ego, being someone, being succsesful, being a fake.

Videtapes of these maniacs during questioning reveal their true nature as they are outmanuvered almost always and what we see is they are a very sorry people and made their own decisions because that is what they like. Like one likes trees, books, and laying in bed, Richard Ramirez liked to rape women and kill them--it is that simple. Spend a day with him (read his biography, get into his head) you will see the dullness, the emptyness, complete ignorance, no spark of brilliance whatsoever!

It is my experience on Earth that people who have ego and very ugly characters might as well have a degeneration of the brain, even though science may not see the disease. The face exudes the colors of thought and one can see the oversmoking on the cheeks and the persiit of power in the eyes. Many self centered people in there 40's begin to reveal through their craziness how truly wrong they were and are in how they live their life and their thought processes which since a child had been about the self, about pride, about acheiving.

The dullness of this mind can not be better showcased thenn in the case of the disgusting Diane Downs (born August 7, 1955) is an American woman convicted of the May 1983 murder of her daughter and the attempted murders of her other two children. and the very ignorant and unfuckable Debora Green (née Jones; born February 28, 1951) is an American physician who pleaded no contest to setting a 1995 fire which burned down her family's home and killed two of her children, and to poisoning her husband with ricin with the intention of causing his death.

I think what Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are talking about is kind of silly, they might have lost the point somewhere. Saddam Hussein was a person. He is not you in some metaphorical experiment. He had his own thoughts, ideas, likes, etc. So he is not someone else ever.

Is the brain conditioned? a thousand times YES! Always will be for it is the maleable nature of the brain since time immemorial.

In that sense we are not that much different than other animals. If you treat a dog very badly, it will become a viscious animal that may bite little childeren.

But we may still be responsible for our own actions, one way or another.

Sam harris wants to completely eliminate free-will. That may seem logical at first glance. But i think it eventually will turn out to be a dead-end street. I believe that it somehow negates the impact of counscious experience on the whole decission making process.