Curious what you guys think. To condense my answer: We can't be inherently even because otherwise society as we know it would not exist. 1) humans pre-agricultural revolution, 2) post-agricultural revolution, 3) governments as social contracts.
Something that interests me is how western society views humans or babies to be inherently evil with the seven deadly sins as a moral framework. While eastern societies view humans as inherently good with Buddhist principals believing humans have the potential to develop into enlightened beings. Although if i had to pick myself, i would say that humans are inherently good.
I would approach this by pointing out the fact that there are 2 starting positions when answering this question, autonomous epistemology and theonomous epistemology. Autonomous epistemology would render all understanding of reality to mans mind whereas theonomous would allow the mind of God to be the arbiter of reality and its understanding. The problem with autonomous epistemology is that the way philosophy has progressed since the enlightenment and David Hume's critique of the many things people just happen to believe in to be true such as "good" "evil" "induction" "causality" cannot be justified with autonomous epistemology because since our experience is limited to our perceptions, there is nothing in our experience to indicate that the origin of our perceptions is either a material substance or a mental substance. Therefore, any substantive affirmation beyond perception is empirically unjustified. The external world, whether mental or material, is empirically un-demonstrable and analytically unnecessary. It is a mere metaphysical speculation. As a matter of habit we may continue to believe in it, but it is nothing more than an unjustified dogma. He destroys here all naturalistic justification for belief in an external world. So one could go on a tangent of the many reasons as to why they chose one answer over the other but if the starting block of all beliefs are unjustified with autonomous epistemology then there is no good or evil, there just IS. Not to mention the various other problems that Hume points out.
i'm rather clueless with epistemology whether it be autonomous or theonomous. Am i correct in saying that autonomous epistemology is a worldview without "god" and the ladder to be a construction of a worldview with the presence of "god"?
although i can not understand your point because I don't understand what autonomous or theonomous epistemology is, you still aren't answering the question given that you have to pick between good vs evil. Since you only said "there just is", which defeats the purpose of the question
@@pan_jam yes your analysis would be correct 👍. My main point is that one would need a coherent epistemology “theory of knowledge” to even claim that something could be evil in the first place. I understand that once someone grants themselves a foundation to build upon they can reason and speculates and make systems that make sense like you did in the video. But I’m saying that if you create that foundation by just your own mind absent the mind of God being able to ground all of the immaterial categories utilized for this type of question (immaterial, universal, invariant and presupposed). The way philosophy has gone when trying to ground all of this in man’s mind has completely shredded the notion meaning they proved that it would just be arbitrary or ad hoc (subjective) for any claim whatsoever. Ex. You can claim that eating someone is evil or immoral but Dahmer feels that it’s good to do so. Why are you correct and he isn’t? And to say some NAP thing or that it stops human flourishing is to beg the question again as to why should one pursue that (saying because it feels good is not justification)
I agree... but i don't we are inherently evil, more so prob a bit more gud. Like when we do evil stuff, thats not the norm for us thats why we dislike it and find it to be bad. Although maybe if we grew up in a society where doing evil stuff was the norm maybe that would be a good counter point (like how some civilizations eat commit cannibalism... idk if doing that is evil per se, but if maybe we lived in a soceity where murder was normal then maybe the baseline for what is "evil" would shift. But i still think we are more bias towards good since our society has been created up towards leaning towards more good than not (to the extent that not good actions are seen as bad). Plus when we do do evil stuff, that also happens because we have a very hard time understanding it since it becomes an abstraction. Like humans litter the planet, and like you are probably solely responsible for like the death of some animal somewhere cos of the garbage you made. But its hard to think about those things since its so abstract. Like we buy products from coca cola which is an evil company since they have made like an entire city in mexico addicted to coca cola. Same can be said for like nestle and other companies too. Does us being complict in that make us evil... idk. I would say, we are probably neutral. BUT if we were to get first hand experience in those places and see that suffering, that would affect us and WOULD make us change our ways. AND that would happen because we got rid of that abstraction.
very dumb, go read or watch nietzsche's book beyond good and evil. But I recommended you don't because you will have a bad day and think too much which I belive is not good.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Curious what you guys think.
To condense my answer:
We can't be inherently even because otherwise society as we know it would not exist.
1) humans pre-agricultural revolution,
2) post-agricultural revolution,
3) governments as social contracts.
Something that interests me is how western society views humans or babies to be inherently evil with the seven deadly sins as a moral framework. While eastern societies view humans as inherently good with Buddhist principals believing humans have the potential to develop into enlightened beings. Although if i had to pick myself, i would say that humans are inherently good.
what makes you think our contemporary society is the inherent result of humans being inherently good?
I would approach this by pointing out the fact that there are 2 starting positions when answering this question, autonomous epistemology and theonomous epistemology. Autonomous epistemology would render all understanding of reality to mans mind whereas theonomous would allow the mind of God to be the arbiter of reality and its understanding. The problem with autonomous epistemology is that the way philosophy has progressed since the enlightenment and David Hume's critique of the many things people just happen to believe in to be true such as "good" "evil" "induction" "causality" cannot be justified with autonomous epistemology because since our experience is limited to our perceptions, there is nothing in our experience to indicate that the origin of our perceptions is either a material substance or a mental substance. Therefore, any substantive affirmation beyond perception is empirically unjustified. The external world, whether mental or material, is empirically un-demonstrable and analytically unnecessary. It is a mere metaphysical speculation. As a matter of habit we may continue to
believe in it, but it is nothing more than an unjustified dogma. He destroys here all naturalistic justification
for belief in an external world. So one could go on a tangent of the many reasons as to why they chose one answer over the other but if the starting block of all beliefs are unjustified with autonomous epistemology then there is no good or evil, there just IS. Not to mention the various other problems that Hume points out.
i'm rather clueless with epistemology whether it be autonomous or theonomous. Am i correct in saying that autonomous epistemology is a worldview without "god" and the ladder to be a construction of a worldview with the presence of "god"?
although i can not understand your point because I don't understand what autonomous or theonomous epistemology is, you still aren't answering the question given that you have to pick between good vs evil. Since you only said "there just is", which defeats the purpose of the question
@@pan_jam yes your analysis would be correct 👍. My main point is that one would need a coherent epistemology “theory of knowledge” to even claim that something could be evil in the first place. I understand that once someone grants themselves a foundation to build upon they can reason and speculates and make systems that make sense like you did in the video. But I’m saying that if you create that foundation by just your own mind absent the mind of God being able to ground all of the immaterial categories utilized for this type of question (immaterial, universal, invariant and presupposed). The way philosophy has gone when trying to ground all of this in man’s mind has completely shredded the notion meaning they proved that it would just be arbitrary or ad hoc (subjective) for any claim whatsoever. Ex. You can claim that eating someone is evil or immoral but Dahmer feels that it’s good to do so. Why are you correct and he isn’t? And to say some NAP thing or that it stops human flourishing is to beg the question again as to why should one pursue that (saying because it feels good is not justification)
I agree... but i don't we are inherently evil, more so prob a bit more gud. Like when we do evil stuff, thats not the norm for us thats why we dislike it and find it to be bad. Although maybe if we grew up in a society where doing evil stuff was the norm maybe that would be a good counter point (like how some civilizations eat commit cannibalism... idk if doing that is evil per se, but if maybe we lived in a soceity where murder was normal then maybe the baseline for what is "evil" would shift. But i still think we are more bias towards good since our society has been created up towards leaning towards more good than not (to the extent that not good actions are seen as bad).
Plus when we do do evil stuff, that also happens because we have a very hard time understanding it since it becomes an abstraction. Like humans litter the planet, and like you are probably solely responsible for like the death of some animal somewhere cos of the garbage you made. But its hard to think about those things since its so abstract. Like we buy products from coca cola which is an evil company since they have made like an entire city in mexico addicted to coca cola. Same can be said for like nestle and other companies too.
Does us being complict in that make us evil... idk. I would say, we are probably neutral. BUT if we were to get first hand experience in those places and see that suffering, that would affect us and WOULD make us change our ways. AND that would happen because we got rid of that abstraction.
why pick one or the other? its such a ridiculous question, what is good and evil? only good answer i see is i dont know
very dumb, go read or watch nietzsche's book beyond good and evil. But I recommended you don't because you will have a bad day and think too much which I belive is not good.