|
| Thread: Good and Evil Terms transfered to Physics |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 20, 2013 06:32 PM |
|
|
Yes. Anger is one of a lot of words describing an emotional state that may mean something different for everyone. Therefore it's not objective.
It's definitions is VAGUE.
That's one of the reasons why there are a lot of words describing similar emotional states. You wouldn't describe a guy using a sledgehammer on someone as "angry", but probably as "frenzied". Or "rabid". Or "berserk".
You also may ask yourself whether there IS a level of "anger" EVERY human would take that sledgehammer and bash someone's skull in. If your conclusion is "no", then "angry expression" doesn't say anything at all.
If you say yes, you get a problem. Our laws are based on something like an average snap value. If consitions are right, it is assumed, it's human to snap and bash another guy's skull in. But if it was an OBJECTIVE thing, you wouldn't need trials; trials with the defense based on that are ALWAYS trying to raise THE SAME EMOTIONS, while the attorney will try and table the OBJECTIVE FACTS.
Bottom line is, the NATURE of human nature is SUBJECTIVITY.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 06:43 PM |
|
|
You're confusing the word "anger" with the state that it describes. Sure, you can call it "frenzied", "berserk", whatever - what matters is that whatever descriptor you use points to an actual objective but not quantifiable state. If you use the word "angry" and I use the word "zaxlebax" to describe the same thing, it's still the same thing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:04 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
Given that "good" and "evil" are entirely subjective terms, the answer is no.
I actually don't think they are. I've thought it for a long time but the older I've goten the more I think that they aren't!
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:06 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
You're confusing the word "anger" with the state that it describes. Sure, you can call it "frenzied", "berserk", whatever - what matters is that whatever descriptor you use points to an actual objective but not quantifiable state. If you use the word "angry" and I use the word "zaxlebax" to describe the same thing, it's still the same thing.
YOU are confusing objective and subjective, because there is no such thing as an OBJECTIVE emotional state.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:21 PM |
|
|
So, when someone is angry, it's nothing like when someone else is angry.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:35 PM |
|
|
Exactly.
That's because you cannot compare "angry". It's like I try to explain to you how I ESPERIENCE the color green. "Green", though, is part of the electromagnetic wave spectrum and can simply be defined. "Being angry", however, is not.
That's because it's an emotional state that is triggered, but neither do the same triggers result in "being angry" at all, not to mention being in a comparable "state of anger", nor result "being angrys" into the same reaction.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:44 PM |
|
|
Being angry can be defined. I can point at someone who's angry and say "the emotion that is causing them to act the way in which they're acting is 'anger'". It can't be defined quantitatively, but it can still be defined. Sure, the triggers may be different, but the emotion is the same.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:59 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Being angry can be defined. I can point at someone who's angry and say "the emotion that is causing them to act the way in which they're acting is 'anger'". It can't be defined quantitatively, but it can still be defined. Sure, the triggers may be different, but the emotion is the same.
That is complete and utter nonsense.
You say this:
I can point at someone WHO IS WHAT I WANT TO DEFINE and say, the UNDEFINED thing that we call EMOTION that WE ASSUME is CAUSING them TO ACT the way they do is "anger".
So you say this: I can point at someone who is "in love" and say, that the emotion that is causing them to act the way they do is "love".
You don't see a bunch of problem with this? With a view on OBJECTIVE versus SUBJECTIVE AND general logic? I mean, so I really haave to spell all flaws and errors here?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:18 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Being angry can be defined. I can point at someone who's angry and say "the emotion that is causing them to act the way in which they're acting is 'anger'". It can't be defined quantitatively, but it can still be defined. Sure, the triggers may be different, but the emotion is the same.
So what? Anger isn't completely subjective and observable to a degree. There are even physical clues like your face going red and your eyeballs dilating etc etc.. Why are you even pointing this out? Anger is not a moral norm. How can you relate what is considered right and wrong by pointing out some feelings and their indicators are common in humans, which in your example, isn't even related to a specific event so that we can decide if it's justified or not?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:44 PM |
|
|
I can feel confident saying someone raging at a cashier is feeling anger.
Since love can be confused with possession, lust, etc etc, I don't feel I could often tell that people are feeling love.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 09:32 PM |
|
|
JJ:
They act as a person who has that emotion would act. Given that there's no way to distinguish that from actually having the emotion, they have the emotion.
artu:
Quote:
Why are you even pointing this out?
Because JJ denies that something can be objective but not quantifiable.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 09:34 PM |
|
|
And that gibberish is supposed to describe something objective?
What did they teach you in school?
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 11:09 PM |
|
|
the sky is blue.
how blue?
i dont know, like the sea.
i dont think you are right, the sky is black.
no it isnt, its blue!
Describes 2 people calling while living on different hemispheres.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 11:38 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:43, 20 Nov 2013.
|
To clarify,
JJ to Mvass:
Quote:
YOU are confusing objective and subjective, because there is no such thing as an OBJECTIVE emotional state.
Actually, he wasn't claiming exactly that. He was claiming an emotional state can be observed objectively, which is, although totally irrelevant, partially true. Objectivity does not mean 100 percent certainty. If I'm watching a box match and one of the boxers is a personal friend of mine, I can still try to remain objective and say his rival has a better chance of winning although my emotional state is wishing my friend knocks him out. That doesn't mean I am (or should be) absolutely sure about my guess.
But then, it's mvass who phrased his (irrelevant) point wrong in the first place:
Quote:
Let me confirm this, in case I misunderstood something. You say that because anger isn't quantifiable, it's not an objective state?
What we were actually talking about was this though, is there an objective moral ground that is beyond historical and social context that determines if the sport of boxing is morally right or wrong. Some would say it's the same as tennis and some would say getting entertained by people beating each other up with the risk of serious brain damage is barbaric and it should be considered immoral. But the boxers have free will? How about dog fights? I seriously doubt anybody before 20th century would even imagine such a question. What on earth can be wrong about dog fights, right? Today, they are illegal in most places. But if we give ourselves the right to kill for food, why not have dog fights also? Yet, we have to eat but we don't have to enjoy fights. Then, what is the role of necessity when determining something is morally acceptable? I'd say a lot since we dont consider quarantines immoral. But nothing about any of this is universal or beyond social context.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 11:49 PM |
|
|
Once we establish that something can be objective but not quantifiable, we can move on to the next part.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 11:56 PM |
|
|
|
Something not quantifiable can be OBSERVED with an objective approach but objectivity is never ever an approach that works 100 percent efficiently. But your real mistake is treating moral norms as physical laws. Aristotales was not just influenced by his time, he was a product of it, just like all the rest of us.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 12:18 AM |
|
|
But it's telling that as different as his time was, there's a lot that he got right, from us viewing it from our time.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 12:21 AM |
|
|
there are also things, hich cant be observed, but there conseuences.
gravity as an example, you cant 'see' it by any means, but u can very well see its conseuences.
Also you can measure(=quantify) gravity, but cant observe it.
so observing and quantifying something has very little to do with eachother.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 12:33 AM |
|
|
|
You agreeing with some of Aristotales' points of view does not mean that both of you are part of a universal normative. And I really doubt the parts you agree are significantly about his ethics.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 01:09 AM |
|
|
No, it doesn't mean that, but it's evidence that points to that. Also, there is a lot of good stuff in Aristotle's ethics.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
