Hands On or Hands Off?

[Gary Childress]

Is the real rational (to coin a famous phrase of Hegel's) or is the real random and chaotic, without direction or purpose? Is "hands-on" better than "hands-off" where social organization and authority are concerned? As a concrete example, there is laissez-faire economics vs Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is of course predicated on humans being able to understand how to run and maintain a 'good', 'desirable', or 'appropriate' economy. Laissez-faire is more the option if one believes that humans intervention in economics is a bad thing, either because we don't understand things well enough and only make things worse when we interfere or because there is a God and God makes sure that everything runs according to his or her "plan" (and therefore some go by the common saying, "let go, let God").

I guess in the end it all comes down to whether or not there is a God or "divine hand" running things. If not, then perhaps we either should or shouldn't try to tweak things (depending upon how confident we feel about our knowledge), if so, then perhaps we shouldn't.

[promethean75]

when hegel says 'rational' the word is loaded af and he doesn't mean it as we normal guys would mean it. for him it's this whole big complicated thing where nature is the development of pure spirit from the base material world and the process of this change is logical, rational and led by contradicting forces that resolve and move the developmental process to the next stage and stuff.

so like if hegel and some guys were hanging out doing something and having normal conversation, and one guy wuz like 'hey man you're not being rational' to the other guy becuz he overreacted or made a bad decision or something, and hegel heard it, he would freeze where he stood, spin around, rush up to the guy stopping inches from his face, and peer at him like a police commissioner doing an interrogation. 'did u just say rational? let me tell u something about the rational, buddy.'

siriusly he wuz that into it. that wuz his word man, and he would pwn anybody who tried to define it.

[Gary Childress]

when hegel says 'rational' the word is loaded af and he doesn't mean it as we normal guys would mean it. for him it's this whole big complicated thing where nature is the development of pure spirit from the base material world and the process of this change is logical, rational and led by contradicting forces that resolve and move the developmental process to the next stage and stuff.

so like if hegel and some guys were hanging out doing something and having normal conversation, and one guy wuz like 'hey man you're not being rational' to the other guy becuz he overreacted or made a bad decision or something, and hegel heard it, he would freeze where he stood, spin around, rush up to the guy stopping inches from his face, and peer at him like a police commissioner doing an interrogation. 'did u just say rational? let me tell u something about the rational, buddy.'

siriusly he wuz that into it. that wuz his word man, and he would pwn anybody who tried to define it.

I've heard Hegel was a little sketchy at times. Two of my favorites, Kirkegaard and Schopenhauer didn't like him. Schopenhauer referred to him as a "windbag", probably alluding to a tendency Hegel had of putting a lot of words into saying things could be more or less simplified in other ways. I had a phenomenology teacher who used to be obsessed with exactly how you said something to the point that unless you quoted directly from Hiedegger's own testimony, then you didn't understand what H was talking about.

There is of course a lot of nuance to Hegel's phrase, and it's difficult to extract a particular meaning from a phrase couched in an elaborate and complex context such as what Hegel gave it. But I'm inclined to believe that if you did all the logic, cancled like terms, crossed out the duplicates, etc and simplified it, Hegel's phrase "the real is rational" would ultimately "boil down" to the idea that everything that happens happens according to reason and is therefore rational because spirit is rational and the world is ultimately spirit. It's a slightly different kind of a take on the Christian notion that God has a "plan". That's really all I'm saying. I don't care to get into all the mechanics and nuance that Hegel gave it. I personally doubt it's entirely necessary. But I suspect it comes down to that in perfectly understandable and translatable shorthand. Otherwise, if that's not what he was essentially saying, then I couldn't image what on Earth Hegel was doing all that babbling and fancy footing about.

[Age]

Is the real rational (to coin a famous phrase of Hegel's) or is the real random and chaotic, without direction or purpose? Is "hands-on" better than "hands-off" where social organization and authority are concerned? As a concrete example, there is laissez-faire economics vs Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is of course predicated on humans being able to understand how to run and maintain a 'good', 'desirable', or 'appropriate' economy. Laissez-faire is more the option if one believes that humans intervention in economics is a bad thing, either because we don't understand things well enough and only make things worse when we interfere or because there is a God and God makes sure that everything runs according to his or her "plan" (and therefore some go by the common saying, "let go, let God").

I guess in the end it all comes down to whether or not there is a God or "divine hand" running things. If not, then perhaps we either should or shouldn't try to tweak things (depending upon how confident we feel about our knowledge), if so, then perhaps we shouldn't.

Are you suggesting here that IF there is a God, then there is NO need for 'you', human beings, to attempt to even become 'better' people, citizens, nor even beings?

If there IS One 'running things' here, then could 'It' just be WAITING, by ALLOWING 'you', human beings, to CHANGE, 'for the better', for, and all by, "your" OWN 'selves'?

Could the coming REVELATIONS 'come-to-light' AFTER 'you' HAVE CHANGED, 'for the better'. And, the One, running things, not necessarily be in ANY hurry and is just WAITING, PATIENTLY?

[Age]

when hegel says 'rational' the word is loaded af and he doesn't mean it as we normal guys would mean it. for him it's this whole big complicated thing where nature is the development of pure spirit from the base material world and the process of this change is logical, rational and led by contradicting forces that resolve and move the developmental process to the next stage and stuff.

so like if hegel and some guys were hanging out doing something and having normal conversation, and one guy wuz like 'hey man you're not being rational' to the other guy becuz he overreacted or made a bad decision or something, and hegel heard it, he would freeze where he stood, spin around, rush up to the guy stopping inches from his face, and peer at him like a police commissioner doing an interrogation. 'did u just say rational? let me tell u something about the rational, buddy.'

siriusly he wuz that into it. that wuz his word man, and he would pwn anybody who tried to define it.

I've heard Hegel was a little sketchy at times. Two of my favorites, Kirkegaard and Schopenhauer didn't like him. Schopenhauer referred to him as a "windbag", probably alluding to a tendency Hegel had of putting a lot of words into saying things could be more or less simplified in other ways. I had a phenomenology teacher who used to be obsessed with exactly how you said something to the point that unless you quoted directly from Hiedegger's own testimony, then you didn't understand what H was talking about.

There is of course a lot of nuance to Hegel's phrase, and it's difficult to extract a particular meaning from a phrase couched in an elaborate and complex context such as what Hegel gave it. But I'm inclined to believe that if you did all the logic, cancled like terms, crossed out the duplicates, etc and simplified it, Hegel's phrase "the real is rational" would ultimately "boil down" to the idea that everything that happens happens according to reason and is therefore rational because spirit is rational and the world is ultimately spirit.

QUITE SIMPLY - EVERY 'thing' happens for a reason.

And, what 'that reason' can be WORKED OUT, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY ALSO, by the way.

It's a slightly different kind of a take on the Christian notion that God has a "plan". That's really all I'm saying. I don't care to get into all the mechanics and nuance that Hegel gave it. I personally doubt it's entirely necessary. But I suspect it comes down to that in perfectly understandable and translatable shorthand. Otherwise, if that's not what he was essentially saying, then I couldn't image what on Earth Hegel was doing all that babbling and fancy footing about.

[Agent Smith]

The question is intriguing to people from all walks in life, but may be of particular significance to those who know what evil spirits really are.

"So you see this is (bang) which means (thump)" said Jonathan, smugly. "Can you repeat that?! We didn't hear a thing! What on earth is going on out there?!" cried someone from the crowd. A diminutive man wearing a grey T-shirt and khaki pants stood up, proclaiming, "I heard everything! If Mr. Jonathan is (clang) then, perforce, we're (bang) and that should (thump). Isn't that awesome?!" "What?!" "Speak louder!" "Someone call the sound guys." "Tell those construction workers to take a 5 minute break for chrissakes!" Silence ... "Er guys, that wasn't exactly what we thought it was!" said a voice. "Why, whatever do you mean? OMG! Run!!!"

[Gary Childress]

The question is intriguing to people from all walks in life, but may be of particular significance to those who know what evil spirits really are.

"So you see this is (bang) which means (thump)" said Jonathan, smugly. "Can you repeat that?! We didn't hear a thing! What on earth is going on out there?!" cried someone from the crowd. A diminutive man wearing a grey T-shirt and khaki pants stood up, proclaiming, "I heard everything! If Mr. Jonathan is (clang) then, perforce, we're (bang) and that should (thump). Isn't that awesome?!" "What?!" "Speak louder!" "Someone call the sound guys." "Tell those construction workers to take a 5 minute break for chrissakes!" Silence ... "Er guys, that wasn't exactly what we thought it was!" said a voice. "Why, whatever do you mean? OMG! Run!!!"

What are "evil spirits", "really"? As far as I know, "evil" is something to be opposed. However, that leaves the question open, "What ought to be opposed"? If we are supposed to oppose "evil" then it might help to flesh out a little better what "evil" is. Any ideas?

[Walker]

For a Dada palliative to mean old eviltude: hands on, hands off, hands across the water, hands across the sky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWoGCdXT07g

[Age]

The question is intriguing to people from all walks in life, but may be of particular significance to those who know what evil spirits really are.

"So you see this is (bang) which means (thump)" said Jonathan, smugly. "Can you repeat that?! We didn't hear a thing! What on earth is going on out there?!" cried someone from the crowd. A diminutive man wearing a grey T-shirt and khaki pants stood up, proclaiming, "I heard everything! If Mr. Jonathan is (clang) then, perforce, we're (bang) and that should (thump). Isn't that awesome?!" "What?!" "Speak louder!" "Someone call the sound guys." "Tell those construction workers to take a 5 minute break for chrissakes!" Silence ... "Er guys, that wasn't exactly what we thought it was!" said a voice. "Why, whatever do you mean? OMG! Run!!!"

What are "evil spirits", "really"? As far as I know, "evil" is something to be opposed. However, that leaves the question open, "What ought to be opposed"? If we are supposed to oppose "evil" then it might help to flesh out a little better what "evil" is. Any ideas?

Abuse.

Opposing and avoiding 'abuse' is good, and thus NOT Wrong, bad, NOR 'evil'.

'Abuse' just means or refers to the misuse of some or ANY 'thing'.

Misusing, or abusing some/any 'thing' is obviously Wrong. So, NOT abusing/misusing ANY 'rhing' is obviously good, and Right.

If you, or ANY one "else" would like to further discuss 'evil' or ANY 'thing' else here, then let us.

[Gary Childress]

The question is intriguing to people from all walks in life, but may be of particular significance to those who know what evil spirits really are.

"So you see this is (bang) which means (thump)" said Jonathan, smugly. "Can you repeat that?! We didn't hear a thing! What on earth is going on out there?!" cried someone from the crowd. A diminutive man wearing a grey T-shirt and khaki pants stood up, proclaiming, "I heard everything! If Mr. Jonathan is (clang) then, perforce, we're (bang) and that should (thump). Isn't that awesome?!" "What?!" "Speak louder!" "Someone call the sound guys." "Tell those construction workers to take a 5 minute break for chrissakes!" Silence ... "Er guys, that wasn't exactly what we thought it was!" said a voice. "Why, whatever do you mean? OMG! Run!!!"

What are "evil spirits", "really"? As far as I know, "evil" is something to be opposed. However, that leaves the question open, "What ought to be opposed"? If we are supposed to oppose "evil" then it might help to flesh out a little better what "evil" is. Any ideas?

Abuse.

Opposing and avoiding 'abuse' is good, and thus NOT Wrong, bad, NOR 'evil'.

'Abuse' just means or refers to the misuse of some or ANY 'thing'.

Misusing, or abusing some/any 'thing' is obviously Wrong. So, NOT abusing/misusing ANY 'rhing' is obviously good, and Right.

If you, or ANY one "else" would like to further discuss 'evil' or ANY 'thing' else here, then let us.

I'll go with that. "Abuse" sounds like a reasonable starting point for a discussion of evil. Now, what counts as "abuse"?

[Walker]

Unnecessary amputations, aka, hands off and other things off.

[Age]

What are "evil spirits", "really"? As far as I know, "evil" is something to be opposed. However, that leaves the question open, "What ought to be opposed"? If we are supposed to oppose "evil" then it might help to flesh out a little better what "evil" is. Any ideas?

Abuse.

Opposing and avoiding 'abuse' is good, and thus NOT Wrong, bad, NOR 'evil'.

'Abuse' just means or refers to the misuse of some or ANY 'thing'.

Misusing, or abusing some/any 'thing' is obviously Wrong. So, NOT abusing/misusing ANY 'rhing' is obviously good, and Right.

If you, or ANY one "else" would like to further discuss 'evil' or ANY 'thing' else here, then let us.

I'll go with that. "Abuse" sounds like a reasonable starting point for a discussion of evil. Now, what counts as "abuse"?

The 'misuse' of some 'thing'.

To KNOW if one is abusing/misusing some 'thing', then one just needs to learn, and/or know, what the 'purpose' of 'a thing' is first.

For example, for one to KNOW, for sure, if they are abusing/misusing a 'human being', or not, then that one just needs to firstly KNOW what the purpose of the 'human being', IS, EXACTLY.

[Gary Childress]

Abuse.

Opposing and avoiding 'abuse' is good, and thus NOT Wrong, bad, NOR 'evil'.

'Abuse' just means or refers to the misuse of some or ANY 'thing'.

Misusing, or abusing some/any 'thing' is obviously Wrong. So, NOT abusing/misusing ANY 'rhing' is obviously good, and Right.

If you, or ANY one "else" would like to further discuss 'evil' or ANY 'thing' else here, then let us.

I'll go with that. "Abuse" sounds like a reasonable starting point for a discussion of evil. Now, what counts as "abuse"?

The 'misuse' of some 'thing'.

To KNOW if one is abusing/misusing some 'thing', then one just needs to learn, and/or know, what the 'purpose' of 'a thing' is first.

For example, for one to KNOW, for sure, if they are abusing/misusing a 'human being', or not, then that one just needs to firstly KNOW what the purpose of the 'human being', IS, EXACTLY.

I didn't know humans had a "purpose". I mean, hammers and toilet bowls have a "purpose" that we other humans assign to them, however, it seems like we can use those things for just about any use we find convenient and not be accused of "abusing" those things. For example, I can use a hammer for a back scratcher and it doesn't seem to be any big deal.

[Age]

I'll go with that. "Abuse" sounds like a reasonable starting point for a discussion of evil. Now, what counts as "abuse"?

The 'misuse' of some 'thing'.

To KNOW if one is abusing/misusing some 'thing', then one just needs to learn, and/or know, what the 'purpose' of 'a thing' is first.

For example, for one to KNOW, for sure, if they are abusing/misusing a 'human being', or not, then that one just needs to firstly KNOW what the purpose of the 'human being', IS, EXACTLY.

I didn't know humans had a "purpose".

Okay, now you DO.

I mean, hammers and toilet bowls have a "purpose" that we other humans assign to them, however, it seems like we can use those things for just about any use we find convenient and not be accused of "abusing" those things.

VERY TRUE.

BUT, if they have 'a purpose', then ANY sort of 'use' of them, which was NOT for their 'intended purpose', then would be 'the misuse' of them, correct?

If no, then why not?

But if yes, then another word for 'that misuse' is 'abuse', right?

For example, I can use a hammer for a back scratcher and it doesn't seem to be any big deal.

To 'you', right?

If you bought, got, or picked up, the hammer to be a 'back scratcher', then that was 'its' 'intended purpose', to you, (maybe alone).

But what was the 'intended purpose' for getting or having 'children'? That is if you have any. Or, what do you envision is 'the purpose' for having children? If you do not have any.

[Gary Childress]

The 'misuse' of some 'thing'.

To KNOW if one is abusing/misusing some 'thing', then one just needs to learn, and/or know, what the 'purpose' of 'a thing' is first.

For example, for one to KNOW, for sure, if they are abusing/misusing a 'human being', or not, then that one just needs to firstly KNOW what the purpose of the 'human being', IS, EXACTLY.

I didn't know humans had a "purpose".

Okay, now you DO.

Good for me! (I hope.) What is our "purpose", knowledgable and wise Age?