• Agustino
    3k
    Manners might rule that discrete infidelity without messy entanglements (like inconvenient offspring) is socially acceptable.Bitter Crank
    How can it be discrete if there's always the possibility that the other party will find out? :s It seems to me whoever thinks it can be discrete is deluding themselves.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    996


    To me that reads more like a question of ignoring the behaviour or not raising it, rather than it being beyond discovery. Something like a society which pretends nothing is going on for social decorum, where manners are more important than recognising or stopping abuse.
  • Agustino
    3k
    To me that reads more like a question of ignoring the behaviour or not raising it, rather than it being beyond discovery. A society which pretends nothing is going on for social decorum, where manners are more important than recognising or stopping abuse.TheWillowOfDarkness
    I agree with you. But I'm asking the question to BC, apparently he thinks it can be discrete, and if it's discrete, it's somehow less morally wrong than otherwise because, for example, he might think someone can only be hurt by what they know, not by what they don't know. So say I cheat on my wife, BC may be of the opinion that I've done no wrong, so long as I'm careful to cover the tracks and my wife never finds out. This opinion is very common actually in the public at large.
  • Heister Eggcart
    422
    Which things don't you do because you think them good?Agustino

    Typing on a keyboard is not a good, or any other amoral action.

    Again, this doesn't disprove my point. Even if I'd rather please my penis (he said it!) than live a still life among monks, all that means is that I judge it to be good to please my penis, hence why I do it.Agustino

    Casanova might have said and done the same thing. He was having sex because he judged that it was the good.

    I may be wrong now in my judgement - that pleasing my penis is good - but it doesn't follow from that that I'm not directed towards goodness.

    Yep, you may be wrong. You also may be wrong about your judgement of the good always being sought, regardless of wrong judgments!

    In this case me. Everyone judges for themselves.Agustino

    Great, so you judged God to be and not the other way around. Glad we've settled that!

    You are defined by reason - it is part of your essence to be a rational animal. If you don't seek goodness, then you are irrational, and if you are irrational you - the rational animal - doesn't exist.Agustino

    Goodness is not rationality, however. One may be rational without striving for the good. If you contest that, okay, but then what will you, and I, use in order to best find the truth to our disagreement? Ah yes,reason.

    By watching the structure of our reasoning faculty, and noticing that it is always aimed towards goodness, even when I do evil.Agustino

    Sounds like a good excuse to fuck bitches since we're aimed at "God" regardless of what we do.

    My logic doesn't determine which judgement is right. It only makes the point that we're both pursuing our paths because we judge them to be good. That's a commonality we share, despite all our differences.Agustino

    As I said before, you have judged that we all pursue the good, which means that such a judgement cannot be true because you've already said that "logic doesn't determine which judgement is right."

    Goodness is more primary than Being - that's the idea.Agustino

    And an unintelligible one at that.
  • Agustino
    3k
    Typing on a keyboard is not a good, or any other amoral action.Heister Eggcart
    You type on a keyboard because you want to communicate, and you want to communicate because you see it as good no?

    Casanova might have said and done the same thing. He was having sex because he judged that it was the good.Heister Eggcart
    Sure.

    Yep, you may be wrong. You also may be wrong about your judgement of the good always being sought, regardless of wrong judgments!Heister Eggcart
    That's not a judgement but the observation of the way reason functions.

    Goodness is not rationality, however.Heister Eggcart
    I agree.

    One may be rational without striving for the good.Heister Eggcart
    Nope. They will think they're striving for the good, even while they're not - just like Casanova.

    If you contest that, okay, but then what will you, and I, use in order to best find the truth to our disagreement? Ah yes,reason.Heister Eggcart
    Our faculties of judgement.

    Sounds like a good excuse to fuck bitches since we're aimed at "God" regardless of what we do.Heister Eggcart
    Nope - that's not what I said. If you know that ****ing bitches is wrong, and you go and **** bitches, then you're just acting irrationally. (I promised Baden not to say that word >:O but you're tempting me :P ) If you don't know that doing the bitches is wrong - and instead you think it's good - then you are sinning, but you are acting rationally.

    As I said before, you have judged that we all pursue the good, which means that such a judgement cannot be true because you've already said that "logic doesn't determine which judgement is right."Heister Eggcart
    A judgement isn't the same as an observation. We observe facts. We judge meanings.

    And an unintelligible one at that.Heister Eggcart
    Not to Plato ;)
  • Bitter Crank
    1.8k
    I'm asking the question to BC, apparently he thinks it can be discrete, and if it's discrete, it's somehow less morally wrong than otherwiseAgustino

    I did not say that manners were more important than morals. I said "I generally favor morals over manners". In the judgement of people who value manners very highly, however, "discretion is the better part of valor" as Falstaff says to King Henry IV in the eponymously named play. In the past as in the present, those with lots of power and wealth to control their PR could get away with more than you could, for example. The associates of the rich and powerful almost always had a good deal to gain by (almost always) valuing decorum above legal proceedings.

    he might think someone can only be hurt by what they know, not by what they don't know. So say I cheat on my wife, BC may be of the opinion that I've done no wrong, so long as I'm careful to cover the tracks and my wife never finds out. This opinion is very common actually in the public at large.Agustino

    Anyone who has worked in public health programs knows that what people do not know can definitely hurt them.

    As for your cheating on your wife, especially considering everything you have said about adultery, you would be so very, very guilty of sin that possibly your burning at the stake would not be too severe. But I digress.

    Sins, crimes, and wrong-doing not discovered are still sins, crimes, and wrong-doing whether anybody knows about it or not. That said, the consequences of sins, crimes, and wrong-doing might be greatly lessened for everyone concerned IF nobody new about it. For instance...

    Russia and the United States spy on each other. Everybody in the spied-upon-country counts this as a very bad thing. But it continues, and is carried out between many allies and enemies. It is normal operating procedure. Spying causes real losses to the spied-upon and real gains for the spying upon. Again, SOP. The worst thing that can happen is for a spy operation to be revealed. Revelations disrupt SOP in the spying nation as well as the spied upon nation. It is better for covert operations if the two nations acknowledge (very privately) that there was a slip up, and then carry on as per usual.

    Carrying on as per usual doesn't mean anybody is happy about spying; it just means that they recognize that spying is a matter that should be kept private--at home and abroad. Revealing all this stuff is just bad manners. Putin was publicly caught trying to fiddle with American Elections and the Russians have been punished, both publicly and (presumably) privately. (Nobody thinks the punishments were very painful, except perhaps to a few very inconvenienced operatives who had to return to Russia, of all places.) No more beach side clam bakes for them! Putin said the Russians would magnanimously not retaliate in kind. Does that mean that Putin is taking the high road? Heavens, no. It just means that Putin will proceed to retaliate in private. And when he does, we will probably not say anything about it.

    A different case: If a child is found to have had sex with the child next door (lets say they are 8 and 10), the worse thing that can happen for the two children is for the 4 parents to go berserk on the two children that had an unauthorized sexual encounter. The parents' hysteria means that the children will never discuss sex with their parents again--ever. The consequences are worse than the "crime".
  • Heister Eggcart
    422
    You type on a keyboard because you want to communicate, and you want to communicate because you see it as good no?Agustino

    I don't intend to do the good by typing on a keyboard, no. It's about as amoral an action you can get.

    That's not a judgement but the observation of the way reason functions.Agustino

    Fine, it's my observation that you're wrong. We good, now?

    Nope. They will think they're striving for the good, even while they're not - just like Casanova.Agustino

    How do you know that he's not?

    Our faculties of judgement.Agustino

    The same faculties that brought you to the conclusion that we only seek the good, >:O

    Nope - that's not what I said. If you know that fucking bitches is wrong, and you go and fuck bitches, then you're just acting irrationally.Agustino

    You're not allowing for disagreement between judgments.

    A judgement isn't the same as an observation. We observe facts. We judge meanings.Agustino

    Fucking bitches is not factually wrong. And if you'd like to judge whether it's morally wrong, then what do you have to use in order to do that? Reason. The same thing that governs why someone may think the complete opposite.
  • John
    2.1k
    Fucking bitches is not factually wrongHeister Eggcart

    So, you're OK with bestiality then?
  • Agustino
    3k
    You're muddling up matters and confusing different concepts.

    I don't intend to do the good by typing on a keyboard, no. It's about as amoral an action you can get.Heister Eggcart
    Do you intend to communicate by typing on a keyboard? If you do, then why do you intend to communicate? Because you think this is good.

    Fine, it's my observation that you're wrong. We good, now?Heister Eggcart
    You don't OBSERVE right and wrong, you judge things to be right and wrong. You observe facts - for example the color of leaves of the tree out your window.

    How do you know that he's not?Heister Eggcart
    My judgement tells me.

    The same faculties that brought you to the conclusion that we only seek the good, >:OHeister Eggcart
    Actually no, because the faculty of judgement =/ reason in the way I've been using it. Reason is the way we function - we do things for certain reasons. That's what rationality is - a creature is rational if it holds reasons for doing X and Y.

    Fucking bitches is not factually wrong.Heister Eggcart
    Yep, we judge it to be wrong. But this isn't to say our judgements can be objective.

    And if you'd like to judge whether it's morally wrong, then what do you have to use in order to do that? Reason.Heister Eggcart
    If I judge it to be wrong, I clearly am not using reason to do it.

    The same thing that governs why someone may think the complete opposite.Heister Eggcart
    Differences in judgement are not differences of reason.
  • Agustino
    3k
    I did not say that manners were more important than morals. I said "I generally favor morals over manners". In the judgement of people who value manners very highly, however, "discretion is the better part of valor" as Falstaff says to King Henry IV in the eponymously named play. In the past as in the present, those with lots of power and wealth to control their PR could get away with more than you could, for example. The associates of the rich and powerful almost always had a good deal to gain by (almost always) valuing decorum above legal proceedings.Bitter Crank
    Okay I agree.

    As for your cheating on your wife, especially considering everything you have said about adultery, you would be so very, very guilty of sin that possibly your burning at the stake would not be too severe. But I digress.Bitter Crank
    >:O I won't do it don't worry.

    Sins, crimes, and wrong-doing not discovered are still sins, crimes, and wrong-doing whether anybody knows about it or not. That said, the consequences of sins, crimes, and wrong-doing might be greatly lessened for everyone concerned IF nobody new about it.Bitter Crank
    Okay. Say I cheat on my wife. Now if I don't tell her, she may never find out, and our relationship may go on. But - that's like tricking my wife to stay in a relationship with me, that's wrong. Withholding the truth from her is immoral, because she should be able to decide if she still wants to stay with a man who cheated on her or not. Sure, the consequences of sin may be more severe this way, so? That's preferable to being a little snitch and lying your way. So if I have any honor or dignity, I will tell her, and if she decides to leave, then she's in her full rights to do that, as I have done wrong. If she decides to forgive me and stay, I'll be very grateful to her, but I certainly don't EXPECT her to do that, nor should I force her to stay with me against her will by lying to her.

    If a child is found to have had sex with the child next door (lets say they are 8 and 10), the worse thing that can happen for the two children is for the 4 parents to go berserk on the two children that had an unauthorized sexual encounterBitter Crank
    What's bad about a child of 8 and 10 "having sex"? :s Or what's sinful about that? At that age they don't even know what sex is, they're just learning their bodies and playing around with each other, including with their sexual organs. They don't even know what they're doing. I did that too at that age! >:O 4-5 of us would do that together actually when we were kids at 8ish, both girls and guys. Does the fact that I put my penis around another male's anus and touch his penis at 8 mean that I am a homosexual to you?! >:O Or does it mean that I had sex with them? Does it mean because we used to touch each other's organs and so forth that we were having an orgy?! In fact, our parents once heard us talking about it, and they lectured us for 15 minutes, then let us go, and we were back to doing the same thing almost immediately >:O - children don't take these matters seriously, they're just learning about their bodies at that young age, which is actually great! It's not actually possible to "have sex" until you're around 12 or perhaps even older 14 and onwards. That's when it becomes sinful, because it actually becomes possible to have it - your psychology is sufficiently developed to allow for it. I also remember we were playing soccer and when one of us would bend over to pick the ball up, the dog would jump on us and start humping us - we had a lot of fun because we were curious what the hell the dog is up to! Does that make us practitioners of zoophilia according to you? >:O In fact, even now I tell this story to people when I want to shock them - my girlfriends actually all found it hilarious!

    For example ... I never even knew what ejaculation was until I was 12, when I accidentally found out and got scared >:O and then researched online to see what the hell had actually happened! Then I tried to do it again and make it happen out of curiosity. Then I started to research and investigate these matters, and then got into pornography etc. until I met my first girlfriend at around 16-17. And I never talked with my parents about sex, but that would just have been embarrassing. They did try to talk to me about it once when I was around 14 but I wasn't very welcoming to the talk. So they stopped. It's kind of embarrassing to do that, I don't understand why anyone would talk with their parents about it. Even when I had a girlfriend, I never told my parents about it. But I've seen folks who talk with their parents openly about that kind of stuff, and I'm like WTF :-O - disgusting! Why would anyone do that?

    If my child actually tries to talk to me about sex, I'll send them off to learn by themselves by directing them to the right books. But I'd definitely not discuss things with them.
  • Bitter Crank
    1.8k
    It's kind of embarrassing to do that, I don't understand why anyone would talk with their parents about it.Agustino

    Right. Well, I didn't talk to my parents about sex, either. Quite unimaginable. But... There has to be something better than overly frank sex talk between parent and child at one extreme, and nothing at the other. An encyclopedia was the only impersonal source of information I could consult and a 1950s encyclopedia wasn't all that helpful, either. (It was fine for anatomy, but that's about it.)
  • Hanover
    846
    Yes; but, we are insatiable creatures. Nothing seems to satisfy us. I might be taking things to the extreme; but, I deny myself any wants and desires that are contrary to reason.Question

    A personal question I suppose, but it does bear some relevance, which is whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude. It's relevant simply because it goes to whether your Stocism is a choice directed to higher happiness, as opposed to it being the path of least resistance. I can say that it's far from certain (and candidly doubtful) whether abandoning desire will lead to happiness as opposed to robbing you of those things that really do matter. That is, have there been available women in your life that you pushed away to both of your dismay, or has it never come quite close to that?

    Whether this smacks of personal advice as opposed to philosophical inquiry, I don't know. It's certainly not analytical philosophy, but more of the type of philosophy practiced by the various ancient Greek schools, where philosophy was more about trying to figure out how to live one's life than in whatever we do now. But, regardless, when one tells me that they've consciously denied themselves of the rock star life, the obvious follow up question to ask is whether you had a rock star life available to you that you could deny yourself of.

    Just my thoughts.
  • Emptyheady
    122
    Desire is innate and is not a choice, nor can it be eradicated -- at best suppressed with some nasty unforeseen side effects. This is why I think Buddhism is fundamentally mistaken and numbing yourself leads to alienation. I believe in two personal virtues, ambition and discipline. Buddhism kills the former.

    It is fascinating to see the enormous ad hoc or post hoc rationalisations people make to deal with the biological nature of human existence.

    I deny myself any wants and desires that are contrary to reason.Question

    Hume was on the right track when he said: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

    "The emotions are mechanisms that set the brain’s highest-level goals. Once triggered by a propitious moment, an emotion triggers the cascade of subgoals and sub-subgoals that we call thinking and acting. Because the goals and means are woven into a multiply nested control structure of subgoals within subgoals within subgoals, no sharp line divides thinking from feeling, nor does thinking inevitably precede feeling or vice versa (notwithstanding the century of debate within psychology over which comes first)." Pinker
  • Agustino
    3k
    whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude.Hanover
    Well this is a bit twisted from the start. As I have explained, we don't simply have the desire for sex in a vacuum. Sex isn't end-in-itself either, and is rather subservient to the purpose of reproduction and intimacy. In order to get what you want in life, it's always more important to say no than to say yes. "Yes"-saying is probably one of the top reasons why people fail to satisfy the strongest desires of the human organism. They are too impatient, and too keen to satisfy their desires, and they hurry head-on towards their own destruction - because of impatience.

    I've known a few of those people who "never" deny themselves "opportunities" - they have never ended up well, even when they succeeded, and that's the saddest thing. The saddest thing is to put up with shit in order to, say, have sex - or agree to be in a relationship with the wrong person, just to have sex - people who do that are weak. For example I knew this girl who was desperate to have a boyfriend after her previous boyfriend broke up with her. So she would take every opportunity. And I remember listening to her telling me that she would date almost anyone she got the chance, she would put up with such and such, and she was always disappointed etc. and I didn't tell her of course, but in my mind I thought "what a ****ing idiot".

    I'm speaking honestly here - you have to deny yourself everything so that you may win what really matters. You don't humiliate yourself for a little bit of sex - I've never done that, nor would I ever do it. That's shameful beyond words, and I have distaste for anyone who ever does that. So when you talk about the "complexities of initiating a relationship" it sounds to me like you're talking about sucking up and humiliating yourself in all sorts of ways which may be socially required, just to do what? To have sex. It's not even like you're going to be doing something great! At least when you humiliate yourself it should be for a noble cause. But the man or woman humiliating themselves to have sex? That's disgusting, not even worth mentioning.

    So for example when I refuse the advances of a woman - am I denying myself, or am I really winning? Am I lacking social capacity, or am I simply refusing to humiliate myself for what isn't even worth grabbing? I don't want nor need some woman just to have sex with her. What I need her for is much much greater than that, and not many women would be capable of such undertakings. So what point would it be to bother? That would be stupid. It would mean denying myself what is most true of me, wasting my time, risking myself when it's not worth taking a risk.

    In psychological circles, to find the essence of one's being, one question is asked - what would be your last words of advice to a child/grandchild on your deathbed? And for me, I'd say "Never put your head down, always keep your head high - never bow, never let yourself be bought with either money, sex or power and never sacrifice your dignity for any of these - for dignity is the one thing you can take with you in the grave, and nothing can snatch it away unless you give it. Everything the world can offer is perishable - more important than winning is not losing - only he who can lose the whole world and not move can also gain it".

    I believe in two personal virtues, ambition and disciplineEmptyheady
    I agree about ambition, but I think it depends from person to person, not everyone is so constructed. Some people are destroyed by their ambition.
  • Question
    407
    A personal question I suppose, but it does bear some relevance, which is whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude.Hanover

    I suppose up until this point my denial of the act of sex has been a semi-conscious decision. I can say that I have had the opportunity to "seize the opportunity," so to speak, but have never acted on it. Like, I said, this is probably due to psychological reasons as it's impossible for me to give you a clear and objective answer as you surely know.

    It's relevant simply because it goes to whether your Stocism is a choice directed to higher happiness, as opposed to it being the path of least resistance.Hanover

    Chicken or egg? Is Stoicism all just a rationalization for, as you say, my personal social ineptitude or has my social ineptitude resulted from my Stoic attitude (as if!).

    I can say that it's far from certain (and candidly doubtful) whether abandoning desire will lead to happiness as opposed to robbing you of those things that really do matter.Hanover

    Maybe not directly to happiness; but, certainly less unhappiness.
  • Question
    407
    "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."Emptyheady

    This is fundamentally flawed. The success of therapy and psychology along with specific elements of it, like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, attest against this interpretation of reason only being a slave to passions.
  • John
    2.1k
    Hume was on the right track when he said: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."Emptyheady

    That seems to be a fairly empty-headed thing to say. Is this a reasoned conclusion or is it motivated by passion?
  • Agustino
    3k
    Chicken or egg? Is Stoicism all just a rationalization for, as you say, my personal social ineptitude or has my social ineptitude resulted from my Stoic attitude (as if!).Question
    But the real and more fundamental question is always whether something really is social ineptitude or the conscious desire of the person in question to act in that manner. Some people view not seizing the opportunity as if it's equivalent with social ineptitude - in their mind, someone who doesn't seize the opportunity isn't aware of it because they are somehow socially inept (or so the story goes). But the truth is often more complicated than this.

    Take Myshkin from Dostoyevsky's Idiot. Everyone takes him to be an idiot, and not understand the world he's living in, however, the real truth, as the narrator knows, is that he's actually the one who understands everyone else, but simply doesn't want to behave like them. To me, social ineptitude would only apply to someone who cannot understand the movements of society around them. But I may be perfectly able to understand them, and yet through my actions, it may appear to others that I don't understand them. I too often am like this.

    Maybe not directly to happiness; but, certainly less unhappiness.Question
    This is similar to my principle - first do not lose, only worry about winning after you're sure about step number 1 :P

    This is fundamentally flawed. The success of therapy and psychology along with specific elements of it, like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, attest against this interpretation of reason only being a slave to passions.Question
    Yes I definitely agree here, although reason isn't completely independent of the passions in the following sense. What you aim for is determined by your passions. For example, someone plays golf because they like it, while someone else plays tennis because that's what they like. Passion still does that, and it's not negative to that extent. However to the extent that it would make you chase after, for example, sex, I agree it's negative.
  • Question
    407
    Yes I definitely agree here, although reason isn't completely independent of the passions in the following sense. What you aim for is determined by your passions. For example, someone plays golf because they like it, while someone else plays tennis because that's what they like. Passion still does that, and it's not negative to that extent. However to the extent that it would make you chase after, for example, sex, I agree it's negative.Agustino

    While, I do not think we have absolute control over our passions, and would rather live in the world where we don't, as emotions are quite good, as opposed to those devoid of them (sociopaths, psychopaths)...

    However, I do think the will precedes reason; but, the amount of work and effort that reason applies in polishing and making a goal a reality is certainly underappreciated in my opinion.

    Reason has a will of its own.
  • Question
    407
    Take Myshkin from Dostoyevsky's Idiot.Agustino

    I have to read more Dostoyevsky, that is for certain.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.