Yes. One without the other is dead though. Without conscience one cannot be spoken to through morality, and without morality, conscience has no impetus.
Yes. This relation was always a big study in philosophy.
Yes. One without the other is dead though. Without conscience one cannot be spoken to through morality, and without morality, conscience has no impetus.
Yes. This relation was always a big study in philosophy.
Is it really a philosophical question?
What causes conscience to actually work in a material world?
I think it can be broken or colden ( seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron-Bible) but not really absent, maybe absent just at mentally ill people.Can the mechanism end up broken or absent?
Honestly, this is really confusing for many. Reductionists say its just a evolutionar or naturalistic protection for our own good. Those who are theists believe that conscience is like a lawyer/witness against/pro our moral actions, given to us by God. There are many views though, and I don't know them.Moreover, why do we even have it in the first place?
If one has free will then why would conscience even be necessary?
sprinkles said:I ask because remorse is not a comfortable feeling, and such a mechanism shouldn't even be necessary if one has actual control of their self. If there is actual good then it should be sufficient to only know it, because if there's absolute good and one is actually free, conscious, and has free will, and they are aware of it, the rational choice should be entirely clear, nobody would have motive to go against it, and therefore conscience would be unnecessary.
If there is actual good then it should be sufficient to only know it, because if there's absolute good and one is actually free, conscious, and has free will, and they are aware of it, the rational choice should be entirely clear, nobody would have motive to go against it, and therefore conscience would be unnecessary.
sprinkles said:It's like with powerful chess computers that play on master level or higher. They have no motivations to make bad moves. And there's really no reason to give them the choice of making bad moves except to dumb them down for inexperienced human players to have a chance of winning against them. Or in other words for the sake of variety and interaction, there's a level of artificial stupidity that is introduced. While a strong chess computer hypothetically can make poor choices, it's not going to because there's no reason for it unless you force it to. Why should it?
Yes, I think that something would be ones own nature. For example a ghost (if its to exists), it has a certain nature, with certain properties. Given those properties, that ghost is limited to the material world to an extend. She can see, walk (sort off) in material world. But she can't interact with objects, she can't "hold" material things, she can't feel in a phisical sense nothing from the material spectrum.[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Yes it seems we mostly agree.
However I posit that there's nothing non-mechanical/material. Why would I posit that?
Because some things are clearly not possible, and to have the impossible (or the possible) there must be material mechanics. For example, if I have a soul, maybe I can't have your soul as well as my own. Maybe I can't be God either. If I can't do these things, there has to be a real and actual reason that I can't do them, otherwise I'll be able to do them.
In metaphysics, one can become, and overthrow God, because there's nothing which prohibits you from doing so! Without a material realm, you'd be able to do anything you can imagine. If I fancy myself as a goddess, I'd become one, because what can stop me? If there's not something that can interact with my essence in a real and mechanical way, then there's nothing that anyone or anything could do about it, is there?
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
There has to be more than one's own nature. What defines the nature?
Also besides, natures don't prevent you from using strategies. You can't very well break concrete with your finger for example, and there's a reason why you can't - it's harder than you are! But if you get a tool and chip away at it, you can break it, because its rules are set. They're set in stone (you see what I did there? haha)
There has to be something that makes the impossible be impossible. Just saying it is so is not enough. In my opinion if you don't actually know why it isn't possible in a quantifiable sense, then you don't actually know anything.
Your affirmation is not "material nature".[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
The only kind of nature there is - material nature. Having properties independent of thought, being itself no matter who, if anyone, looks at it.
I don't know about the bogeyman think, but this is not "material nature" again.Tell me. If nonphysical entities are given legitimacy, why do we not fear the bogeyman? He's used to scare children but after a while it no longer works. Why not? If the bogeyman can't actually get you then it isn't a thing, even if you can philosophically question it.
Again this is not "material nature".Philosophy is mostly good for handling emotional matters and developing strategies to accomplish things through meta knowledge. It's not really good for determining how things work or what exists (though you can use it to try and puzzle out how to figure out how to figure out how things work or what exists i.e. ontology, epistemology)
Your affirmation is not "material nature".
I don't know about the bogeyman think, but this is not "material nature" again.
Again this is not "material nature".
You made three afirmations that deny everything outside of "material nature". All three affirmations are philosophical in nature.
I think true sociopaths get their power from taking advantage of someone those who are intimidated by them, especially someone who finds it hard to belief that anyone can lack so much empathy. In other words, they develop their lack of empathy from the people they try to take advantage. If they see they can manipulate and get under your skin, and rattle you, then they will because they realize it's having an effect. That's where their power derives. If you believe they are as powerful and as dangerous as they say they are, it tends to give them more power and advantage. If they see you are affected by them, then they get the upper hand. I don't doubt they are dangerous and they usually have an mo. They generally go after those who they they believe are gullible and vulnerable. They often target those who are "simple". In other words, they get their kicks from those who they can make feel inferior and weaker. They want you to feel less or beneath them. Their goal is control and the upper hand.
However, if you're not affected by them or if you are immune, you are lucky. IF you can see them a mile away and stay away, chances are you've dodged a bullet. If you're not easily affected by them, then the impact won't be as harsh. In other words, I don't always think it's a case of someone being sociopath or not. Sometimes, it's a developed trait. Depending on the response they get, they will likely adjusts their sociology and psychology to fit the person. They are excellent chameleons. They can seem normal one minute but next do something to make you shiver. So, it depends.
I also just think we may sometimes give the sociopathic label to someone as a reason or excuse for their behavior rather than this person taking personal responsibility for their actions and choosing not to take those actions. Arguing that they have no control over those apathetic feels or emotions makes it too easy for sociopath to justify and continue their behavior. It makes them feel smarter and more attuned than everyone else.
Edit: Kinda makes you think of ethics. Does the fact that someone doesn't have empathy mean they don't have ethics?
You do have a point about a sociopath deriving their sense of power from rattling people and getting under their skin because it gives them more power and advantage. I think what makes a sociopath dangerous is the combination of someone who is very smart with the lack of empathy. I don't believe that in general they go after people who are simple, on the contrary they would much prefer to outsmart somebody who is smart. It's a game that bolsters their self-esteem. There is no merit in outsmarting someone who is dumb but if you do it to someone who thinks they are smarter than you than that is power.
I truly believe that anybody could be conned by a sociopath, except perhaps another sociopath. They appear quite normal and in most cases their manipulative behaviour is not obvious. I think that is one of the differences between a narcissist and a sociopath, a narcissist will act in a way to get recognition for how great they are, sociopaths don't do it for other's recognition, they do it for themselves and they don't need others to recognize their power for them to enjoy it.
I don't like labels so I'm not completly comfortable with using the term 'sociopath' to describe somebody in my life but I do believe that the lack of empathy is real and is a type of pathology and not a normal thing for the great majority of people. I really don't think most people would choose to be this way. I think they use it as a tool to feel better about themselves.
People who lack empathy can certainly be ethical if they choose to be. People can choose to act in a certain way because they believe it is the right thing to do and not because they 'feel' for the person.