|
Post by twik on Jun 23, 2011 9:36:36 GMT -4
Well, some might argue that denying one's own true nature is bad in itself, and a source of evil. That if we *truly* follow our nature, it's not going to lead us wrong. It seems like a copout to me, like people who claim to be sociopaths or have Asperger's not because they do but because they think it gives them an excuse to be jerks. Well, I think that it might be argued that sociopathy or other mental disease is a corrupution of one's "true nature". Following one's "true nature" is not (philosophically) meant to justify acting evilly - rather, treating evil as a deviation from the "true nature", that must be fought with, and eliminated. Not exactly the same idea as replacing the "true nature" with something artificial, even if the results would be similar. Basically, it's the idea that "deep down, in your heart of hearts, you know right from wrong. You just have to listen to what that part of your heart is telling you, not what shallow or ignoble impulses are telling you." Because really, if one's true nature is evil, what would impel one to try to change it?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 23, 2011 10:12:51 GMT -4
My primary observation of what people think of as "true nature," is what we do when striped of the civility that comes from identifying oneself as being part of a community. You discover someones nature when they feel free to act with little fear of consequences. What its the nature of a hacker that would never steal a Playstation from a store but is willing to cause far more damage by hacking into Sony's web site and make an anonymous pseudo-intellectual justification for the action?
While the public/anonymous dichotomy has some intuitive appeal, it does not satisfy the notion that one form of action is no more or less true or natural than others. After all, being a member of a community is one of the most natural of human urges. Perhaps it is a semantic differential, but some people seem to think that a true nature can really be discovered without giving much though to whether it really exists. There is a reason that concepts have different popular and scientific definitions.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 23, 2011 13:40:17 GMT -4
Well, I think that it might be argued that sociopathy or other mental disease is a corrupution of one's "true nature". Following one's "true nature" is not (philosophically) meant to justify acting evilly - rather, treating evil as a deviation from the "true nature", that must be fought with, and eliminated. Not exactly the same idea as replacing the "true nature" with something artificial, even if the results would be similar. That's circular reasoning, though. "Sociopathy must be a corruption of your true nature, because it makes you behave in ways that aren't good, and true natures are always good." Don't get me wrong; I believe it's a disease, and I believe it's a disease that needs treatment. (Though most sociopaths aren't interested in a cure, because a conscience just sounds like so much bother!) However, I would define "true nature" as closer to "how you act without thinking too much about how you act." And a sociopath acts the way they do without thinking too much about how they act in ways that are contrary to societal expectations.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 23, 2011 14:48:45 GMT -4
However, I would define "true nature" as closer to "how you act without thinking too much about how you act." How does this square with the fact that how people act can be highly depend on the situation. A child with a parent will behave differently that the same child with friends. In both cases without "thinking" to much about it because the child is under parental or peer pressures. Which is the true nature? The community to which a person feel the greatest attachment at the time (family or friends in this example) is significant to the behavior. Which one reflects the true nature? My concerns are that people start to define one behavior as true and the other as affect. When in fact there is little reason for the differentiation. Is a child that misbehaves when with friends revealing a true nature of delinquency or is it a aberration caused by bad influences on a child that the parents identify as having a good nature because of a pattern of good behavior at home? It is really the labeling of anything like a "nature" that is not precisely definable and certainly unobservable as "true" that disturbs me the most. A person's nature is, in essence, a metaphysical concept.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 23, 2011 15:03:48 GMT -4
How does this square with the fact that how people act can be highly depend on the situation. A child with a parent will behave differently that the same child with friends. In both cases without "thinking" to much about it because the child is under parental or peer pressures. Which is the true nature? Both are. It is the child's nature to act more respectful when a parent is present then when it is surrounded by friends. How one reacts to circumstances could be said to be part of one's nature, despite the fact that the circumstances are external. Being a metaphysical, largely unobservable or indefinable concept doesn't mean that it isn't there. We should of course be cautious at lableing others when such lables are ill-defined, but the concept may still have its uses.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 23, 2011 16:35:15 GMT -4
How does this square with the fact that how people act can be highly depend on the situation. A child with a parent will behave differently that the same child with friends. In both cases without "thinking" to much about it because the child is under parental or peer pressures. Which is the true nature? Why assume that "true nature" is simple? My little sister's true nature is to go along with whatever seems like a good idea at the time, and that's different depending on whether she's with my mom or with other people. (To be fair, I haven't spoken to her voluntarily since 1995, so I must admit that my impression of her true nature is crystallized in her adolescence.) When she was little, she and the boy down the street were bad influences on each other, in that neither would have done alone the things they did together. However, there was something in each of them that would lead to their believing that, say, playing with matches in our neighbour's overgrown backyard in the height of a Los Angeles summer was a good idea, whereas I wouldn't have done that no matter who I was with and she wouldn't have done it with anyone but him.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 23, 2011 17:13:58 GMT -4
I don't know if there is such a thing as "true nature". People act and react differently to different things depending on many influences. Some are more likely to act "bad" in crowds or alone. For instance a serial killer compared to those idiots in Vancouver riot's last week. Would the effects of bad parenting warp the person's "true nature"? Many events in live shape a person's personality... being bullied as a kid, being pampered growing up, educated vs. non-educated, being brought up religious or not (you can decide for yourself which is better), being poor or rich, healthy or sick, having friends or being alone...
Taken into account that as we age, we also become more educated, one's "true nature" may not reveal itself until close to death - again if there is such a thing.
As an agnostic, I'm often confused over the importance of an "objective moral authority" that people of religious beliefs keep bringing up when debating with atheists. Why can't proper behavior be developed and keep evolving as mankind does - why does it have to be part of some divine creator's will? Why can't man, as he matures throughout history establish a code of conduct on his own?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 23, 2011 17:19:51 GMT -4
Hey, don't pin that one on all people with religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 23, 2011 17:29:19 GMT -4
Hey, don't pin that one on all people with religious beliefs. Okay, "some". Thats what I meant anyway.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 23, 2011 19:58:18 GMT -4
As an agnostic, I'm often confused over the importance of an "objective moral authority" that people of religious beliefs keep bringing up when debating with atheists. Why can't proper behavior be developed and keep evolving as mankind does - why does it have to be part of some divine creator's will? Why can't man, as he matures throughout history establish a code of conduct on his own? Does objective morality require the existence of a creator? In my view it doesn't. What is good is good and what is evil is evil, and it wasn't arbitrarily determined by God. It's simply the way the universe works. Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could, but if a loving and wise parent wishes to give you advice on what is good and evil, why reinvent the wheel?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 23, 2011 21:47:08 GMT -4
Okay, "some". Thats what I meant anyway. The thing is, you get any group of people together of differing belief structure who believe that morality is objective, and there will be at least a few points where they differ. It's a cute claim, but there's nothing to it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 23, 2011 21:49:37 GMT -4
As an agnostic, I'm often confused over the importance of an "objective moral authority" that people of religious beliefs keep bringing up when debating with atheists. Why can't proper behavior be developed and keep evolving as mankind does - why does it have to be part of some divine creator's will? Why can't man, as he matures throughout history establish a code of conduct on his own? Does objective morality require the existence of a creator? In my view it doesn't. What is good is good and what is evil is evil, and it wasn't arbitrarily determined by God. It's simply the way the universe works. Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could, but if a loving and wise parent wishes to give you advice on what is good and evil, why reinvent the wheel? Good question, and I don't have an answer for it. I guess its simpler if you break it down to good and evil, but there's so many grey areas in between - making the right decision in all circumstances - seems to really rely on your own instincts about what is the right thing to do. After all, there's not two people on this planet who agree completely on what is right and wrong in every situation. I guess a religious person might pray to his/her God for advice, but lots of people have "talked to God" (the voice in their head) and did terrible things.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 24, 2011 11:23:53 GMT -4
Good question, and I don't have an answer for it. I guess its simpler if you break it down to good and evil, but there's so many grey areas in between - making the right decision in all circumstances - seems to really rely on your own instincts about what is the right thing to do. After all, there's not two people on this planet who agree completely on what is right and wrong in every situation. I agree that you must make your own determination on what is right and what is wrong, which includes listening to those you trust on moral issues. And why should the fact that people can't agree mean that a thing has no objective reality? If no one agreed on exactly how fast gravity accelerates your feet to the ground it wouldn't mean that gravity doesn't in fact work. But as you say, they weren't really talking to God, were they?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 24, 2011 16:35:22 GMT -4
Good question, and I don't have an answer for it. I guess its simpler if you break it down to good and evil, but there's so many grey areas in between - making the right decision in all circumstances - seems to really rely on your own instincts about what is the right thing to do. After all, there's not two people on this planet who agree completely on what is right and wrong in every situation. I agree that you must make your own determination on what is right and what is wrong, which includes listening to those you trust on moral issues. And why should the fact that people can't agree mean that a thing has no objective reality? If no one agreed on exactly how fast gravity accelerates your feet to the ground it wouldn't mean that gravity doesn't in fact work. But as you say, they weren't really talking to God, were they?[/quote] I hope not! Maybe a thread about "Objective Morality" is due, Jason?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 25, 2011 21:05:26 GMT -4
Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could, but if a loving and wise parent wishes to give you advice on what is good and evil, why reinvent the wheel? Several possibilities: - Said wheel is observed to be of flawed design.
- Said loving and wise parent is observed using a wheel of different design.
- Said wheel is determined to be invented not by said loving and wise parent, but by a monopolistic sibling.
I agree that you must make your own determination on what is right and what is wrong, which includes listening to those you trust on moral issues. And if the advice of one you trust is determined to be incorrect? Perhaps it would mean that "gravity" is not, in fact, a natural force, but some form of Intelligent Manipulation.
|
|