Selfishness is good.

[Walker]

There is lots of evidence that evil does exist in the world.

I completely disagree.

Evil is a result of a relationship. Evil is not an entity. It is part of religious doctrine that evil is an entity, but it is a false proposition, even by the same standards that religions use. In other words, when you think it true, religions, Christianity in particular, fail in a number of ways when they show that evil is an entity.

That said, sadness and negative emotions can't be eradicated. They are also defense mechanisms against the feeling of loss, and therefore they are an evolutionary advantage. Sometimes negative emotions are the results of mutations or of parasitic disease, or of injury. You can't do much about that, either. Not in the present stage of human knowledge.

Was Hitler evil?

Or, given your definition that excludes entities, did Hitler commit or order evil acts?

[henry quirk]

Sure I do: I just don't give a shit.

[Walker]

As with freedom, libertarianism is a state of mind that transcends circumstance.
A man can be in chains, walking to his execution, and yet be free.

A libertarian is the state of mind of a boss who has the final say and responsibility over what gets done.

Communitarians are often heard to say, it wasn’t my fault, or else they say, it was the fault of the system. To complain about the system is actually virtue signaling for communitarians, for if you agree with another in a bonding of victims that your problems are caused by the system rather than by lack of adaptation and mitigation, then you and your fellow sheep have a common grounding.

The libertarian says: A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

[Walker]

Wealth is not always a zero-sum game of consumables. As you mentioned, wealth can be created. Wealth is defined as an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

Time is the greatest wealth.

Money can buy you time to do as you please, and freedom is the capacity to do what pleases you.

Freedom that transcends money is living in pleasure that is independent of circumstance, within a wealth of time.

[-1-]

Was Hitler evil?

Or, given your definition that excludes entities, did Hitler commit or order evil acts?

It does not matter whether evil is an entity or a quality borne of the relationship between people.

You can use evil as an entity in a way that is an icon, a paradigm, or a manifest.

But evil is only felt by humans, or perhaps by living things. It is a mostly anthropo-centric concept. It exists, but it is not an entity; it is a quality.

Is charity an entity? No. Is irresponsibility an entity? No. Is kindness an entity? No. Is evil and entity? No.

If you are coming from a religious consideration, then I have no arguments against your stance, Walker. A religion will dictate dogmas as required beliefs, and bang, there is the reason, the logic, the truth of reality immediately snatched away from the believer. Arguing with a religious person about dogmas of their faiths is like arguing with a dog whether bouncy, flying and rolling balls are really squirrels, or the other way around.

[henry quirk]

Right on the money, as you often are, Walker.

[-1-]

Right on the money, as you often are, Walker.

Now all of a sudden, and in spite of all that you vehemently profess, it feels good for you to be a cog among many in the wheel.

I did not even have to say anything to you to make you come out with this, Henry.

-------

P.s. I may have misreferenced to what post of Walker you wrote this, Henry. I blame you, Henry, for my mistake, for you never gave any pointers as to what the heck you commended Walker for.

[-1-]

Sure I do: I just don't give a shit.

And that is your saviour. An ostrich that is always right only by ignoring all valid and pertinent information and evidence that is contrary to its own beliefs.

[henry quirk]

"Now all of a sudden, and in spite of all that you vehemently profess, it feels good for you to be a cog among many in the wheel."

So, when I offer a compliment, I'm a cog.

What a strange world you come from, -1-.

#

"I may have misreferenced to what post of Walker you wrote this, Henry. I blame you, Henry, for my mistake, for you never gave any pointers as to what the heck you commended Walker for."

Since I was complimentin' Walker, it only matters that he knows why.

#

"An ostrich that is always right only by ignoring all valid and pertinent information and evidence that is contrary to its own beliefs."

FYI: ostriches have been known to kick the ever-livin' shit outta folks.

[TryingMyBest]

There is lots of evidence that evil does exist in the world.

I completely disagree.

Evil is a result of a relationship. Evil is not an entity. It is part of religious doctrine that evil is an entity, but it is a false proposition, even by the same standards that religions use. In other words, when you think it true, religions, Christianity in particular, fail in a number of ways when they show that evil is an entity.

That said, sadness and negative emotions can't be eradicated. They are also defense mechanisms against the feeling of loss, and therefore they are an evolutionary advantage. Sometimes negative emotions are the results of mutations or of parasitic disease, or of injury. You can't do much about that, either. Not in the present stage of human knowledge.

Was Hitler evil?

Or, given your definition that excludes entities, did Hitler commit or order evil acts?

-1-, I agree about evil not being an entity. But I disagree that feeling "sadness" (a psychological pain) at losing something that one loved is evolutionarily advantageous. How is psychological pain that is associated with losing something/someone that is loved advantageous? Unless neurobiology proves me wrong, I think that "sadness" is a lack of feeling good, rather than an actual emotion itself. Not feeling good, contrasted with feeling good, feels not good. But the psychological pain involved comes from a wish that reality was different than it is. This wish for reality to be instantaneously/magically better is the source of psychological suffering and has no advantage. The desire to make things better is real and causes not pain but motivation.

Walker, I accept that Hitler was not evil but that his actions/orders were. His orders should never have been carried out. Evil is that which brings into non-existence that which is good. The action of murder is such an example. So, yes, he committed evil actions.

But was he motivated by an evil essence or by good values? He was not schizophrenic, there were no hallucinated devils whispering to him to commit these evil actions. So is it possible that he decided to take these actions even though he only had good values to motivate him? Yes.

He was not motivated by evil, for evil is a false essence. He was motivated by valuable things, such as a desire to defeat evil. It was flawed logic (to think that Jews were evil) and flawed ethics (to think that murder could be justified) that allowed him to think that what he was doing was justified. Just as one reflects one, the perception of one group causing harm leads to the inclination to perpetrate harm on that group. Hitler believed in evil and the belief in evil leads one to commit actions to eliminate evil. The only true way to eliminate evil is by eliminating the belief in its essence; to destroy evil, one must refrain from thinking that someone is evil. Rather, we would think that someone acts from a supposition of its being his duty.

Evil was his enemy; ispo facto, he was attempting to do good and create harmony for his group.
The problem was in his lack of consciousness expansion, having refrained from seeing all individual humans are part of his group.

[-1-]

-1-, I agree about evil not being an entity. But I disagree that feeling "sadness" (a psychological pain) at losing something that one loved is evolutionarily advantageous. How is psychological pain that is associated with losing something/someone that is loved advantageous? Unless neurobiology proves me wrong, I think that "sadness" is a lack of feeling good, rather than an actual emotion itself. Not feeling good, contrasted with feeling good, feels not good. But the psychological pain involved comes from a wish that reality was different than it is. This wish for reality to be instantaneously/magically better is the source of psychological suffering and has no advantage. The desire to make things better is real and causes not pain but motivation.

When you hurt your finger, you learn to be more careful with a hammer.

When you encounter evil, and respond with sadness or with anger or with resentment, you learn to either avoid situations that make you feel those negative feelings, or else you learn to prevent those situations from happening, or else you learn to punish those who created those situations so you won't have to go through the suffering again.

This is the evolutionary advantage: negative feelings (whether you interpret them as lack of good or actively bad, no matter) motivate you to make a better life for yourself, with less stress, less damage, less loss.

[-1-]

"Now all of a sudden, and in spite of all that you vehemently profess, it feels good for you to be a cog among many in the wheel."

So, when I offer a compliment, I'm a cog.

What a strange world you come from, -1-.

Pointing to you that your a cog, is not a punishment or a compliment; it is showing you that you are agreeing to being a fully participating part of the status quo which you so vehemently don't want to join. That's all I meant.

#

"I may have misreferenced to what post of Walker you wrote this, Henry. I blame you, Henry, for my mistake, for you never gave any pointers as to what the heck you commended Walker for."

Since I was complimentin' Walker, it only matters that he knows why.

Then you ought to have made it known that it's for him only. If you like, I will ignore all your posts. Just say the word. You are quite childish in saying that what's on a public forum between you and an intended target of your message, others should and must ignore. But if that's what you want, say it now or hold your peace for ever.

#

"An ostrich that is always right only by ignoring all valid and pertinent information and evidence that is contrary to its own beliefs."

FYI: ostriches have been known to kick the ever-livin' shit outta folks.

And folks have been known to shoot and kill ostriches to near extinction.

[henry quirk]

The word is given.

[gaffo]

Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit describes the progression of consciousness into ascending stages of realization. If the self is looked at as only from the perspective as an emergent authority over one's system of organs, then selfishness cannot pass Kant's Categorical Imperative test. If, however, the self is also viewed as a cell in a larger society of cells, then selfish interest would equal the interests of society. In fact, the self is available to be viewed in an infinite number of groupings and associations. The self may realize it is a member of the group of conscious living things, and "selfishly" protect and support this group. The self may realize it is a member of a family, a neighborhood, a country, a team, a belief set, a common ancestry, or all of reality.
With this definition, selfish actions harmonize and benefit the entirety of reality.

The dictionary defines self as "a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others", and selfish as "lacking consideration for others for personal profit or pleasure." The "others" are consequently the group which is not members of reality. These include things that have been negated from reality like nothing, no one, nobody, unhappiness, discontent, non-existence (basically anything real with a negative prefix). So it is right and just to be selfish at nobody's expense.

no selfishness is not good - in fact the concept of Evil - pure Evil is 100 percent Selfishness.


i,e like the Biblical Satan - with disregard of others. as long as actions are for self gain.

empathy (selflessness) is of course the opposite and Good ideally.


conventional Christianity per 2000 yrs or so (30 yrs after the death of Jesus) champions "Selfless death" - Christ on the cross of my/your/all our sins.

that is crap - its great in the abstract, but in the real world, Jesus did not deserve to die the way he did vie insturection (and the re=writing of him for the new religion created in his name - though great in the abstract - not apt in the real world -= it rewrites the tormant of the man jesus,and negates his humanity as one of us just being killed by dicks for political reasons - not moral reasons "to save the world")

I'm an realist, and so strive for good but not a floormat for selfish(evil) dicks either.

so here in the real world "honest" selfishness/selflessness - to not be floodmat - nor be dick either - is the correct course IMO.

[Age]

To KNOW thy Self.

Once the 'I' is KNOWN and understood. This happens when the question, Who am 'I'? is answered properly and correctly.

Selfishness is then Truly good.

Thee True Self is different than the self.

Just like the 'I' is different than the 'you'.

I have every right to be Selfish, whereas you do not.