Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

It's not even the poor translation of their posts that is causing the problem. Their own misinterpretations of what I think are pretty clear statements of what our issues are, only add to the problem.

Like, they keep saying things such as "i am understand you see the religion not valid as statement...for now." which simply miss the point entirely.

Nobody is dismissing anything you say simply because it is religious, nobody is suggesting the religious view is invalid. The -content- of your posts is completely not the issue here, it's the format entirely.

[Zythus]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Misanthropy can be considered in more ways than one as its source may vary from person to person. I have a particular issue with the cause of your own misanthropy: a general distaste for what you consider to be the negative side of 'human nature.'

I'm going to go out on a limb and just tell you all I'm an existentialist and I follow Sartrean Existentialism to the dot. That said, I do not believe there is such a thing as the inherently good or the inherently evil. Existence precedes essence thus our choices mold who we and our society become, and the meaning of our lives as individuals and a community. It is our duty as humans beings - we are essentially condemned - to choose our values and morals for ourselves and our fellow man in an attempt to create a more stable and prosperous society. I can understand why one would be a misanthropist under this scheme as even I have lost faith in most people. However, that doesn't allow you to disregard your duty to humanity or to be discouraged by your fellow man's faults. You're using misanthropy as an escape from a problem that cannot be easily solved.

It's easier to say that a man is born a coward, it makes for an excellent excuse for his otherwise unacceptable cowardice. People start having issues when they consider they are an actual part of the problem. It's harder to accept you are a coward because you chose to be one. I'm just surprised you've accepted to eliminate yourself along with the rest of humanity in fear of having your beliefs debunked. Do you not feel you have a sense of responsibility towards your fellow human being? To fix this so-called mess? If not, you're just another part of the problem. I just commend you to acknowledge that you, as your fellow man, the sole reason for your misanthropy, chose to be as you are. Oh, the irony.

Firstly, what you are saying is quite paradoxical. If you truly are an existentialist, you would not emphasize that we, as individuals, shape and build society in a "responsible" manner, to a state where it is for the good for ALL of us. In your argument, you are treating humanity as an embodiment which creates a "better society". Nowhere does it promote individualism.

Secondly, I disagree with your existentialism because you are saying that individual choices and arbitrary decisions by all humans result in the betterment of the world. This is contradictory because not everyone has the same criteria of change and wishes that the world changes differently. You are generalizing and subjecting the human population under the assumption that we will all wish for good and our "personal" decisions will help build a better world. An individual cannot mold society. It is by a union or large scale movement that revolutionizes the world for the better.

However, that doesn't allow you to disregard your duty to humanity or to be discouraged by your fellow man's faults. You're using misanthropy as an escape from a problem that cannot be easily solved.

My misanthropic stance does not equate disregard in terms that I am rebuking what crimes my fellow man had done. You are suggesting that we are all in this slum called humanity together. I agree. Yet that doesn't mean I cannot have a different view on humanity.
Escape? No, I'm more like stating the obvious. There is no remedy to the problem of human nature. As long as humans have preference and thought, there will always be the myriads of problems that inundate society. (Racism, discrimination, sexism, etc.)
Do I feel the responsibility? What responsibility? We cannot transcend our nature. Hence there is no such thing as the cowardance you speak of nor the option to change and "fix" things.

Irony? Indeed.

[rising crescent]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

You can easily discuss religion in general language, we've done it many times on this forum and will do so many times more

but none of them are like us,arent they.because you all are here,are the same construction to see religion.
always try to explain 'what cannot explained in rational minds-- the minds who reject spirituality accesing.

how can you try to understand when you 'always' reject at same time?
you cannot Understand whileyou alway depend and have faith on that 'false construction minds'

" Learn NEw Minds Construction Developing form The Signs originate from Holy Book in times cannot determined" for example is a statement that simply makes no actual sense as a sentence in English. These are the kinds of things you need to correct.

what i means is...
Holy book is not just law in life,but also knowledge to think,knowledge to shape WHo you are on your own free will with using The Signs of God from Holy Book.

it cannot used as filling the holesin yourmindsbasedon your own construction,but Change entirely your mind.MAybe it will make you fear,same with all other humans.

but you,all ...including me must Trust GOD who Himself Teach it for you.

so,the problem is within yourself.as long as you always use your present construction minds and soul..with always conflict with God true knowledge to understand Him...you never understand Him like must be to understand.
this is big difference between how try to understand and build science and technology WITH how try tounderstand secret of religion...

What is your first language? Depending on what it is, I may be able to help.

Actually, this looks very similar to Shiki's English, except Shiki's conversation had nothing to do with religion. Same translator, I guess.

From the amount of time he/she is taking to post, I can tell that he's/she's using a very unreliable and inefficient translator... =/

would you like teach me to learn good english?

I am a male

Like, they keep saying things such as "i am understand you see the religion not valid as statement...for now." which simply miss the point entirely.

Nobody is dismissing anything you say simply because it is religious, nobody is suggesting the religious view is invalid. The -content- of your posts is completely not the issue here, it's the format entirely.
__________________

i understand.i am searching how to get best explanation so they undersand it

There is no remedy to the problem of human nature. As long as humans have preference and thought, there will always be the myriads of problems that inundate society. (Racism, discrimination, sexism, etc.)

there is one remedy to cure all society sickness...

Secondly, I disagree with your existentialism because you are saying that individual choices and arbitrary decisions by all humans result in the betterment of the world. This is contradictory because not everyone has the same criteria of change and wishes that the world changes differently.

existealism will only make Neverending conflicts on earth.because they reject each other. the only remedy to cure this Chaos Out of Cosmos is to make all humans as ONE PIECES OF MIND AND SOUL

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Sorry, but the best way to learn English is to take at least a full-year course of English class from a certified teacher. Online translators fail, and English isn't an exception.

Quite frankly, we won't understand your point without explaining it in English. =/

There is no point in arguing with devonin by restating your points concerning humans and misanthropy. devonin is merely saying that you aren't writing proper English, which completely nullifies everything you are trying to say.

[x After Dawn x]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

would you like teach me to learn good english?

I am a male

That didn't sound sexist at all...

[Zythus]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

I believe a "Lol" would be appropriate here.

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

I believe a "Lol" would be appropriate here.

Since "here" is the Critical Thinking forum, I'm going to go with "No, it woudln't"

[UserNameGoesHere]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Am I the only one who actually can understand what he is saying?

The sentence structure is foreign to English, true, but it's still not that difficult to understand what he means, in my opinion.

I do realize that correct spelling/grammar are requirements for posting on this forum though.

[FictionJunction]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Firstly, what you are saying is quite paradoxical. If you truly are an existentialist, you would not emphasize that we, as individuals, shape and build society in a "responsible" manner, to a state where it is for the good for ALL of us. In your argument, you are treating humanity as an embodiment whalisich creates a "better society". Nowhere does it promote individualism.

Sartrean Existentialism doesn't go out of its way to be solely individualistic. It's not supposed to be solely individualistic at all. It is only individualistic in response to the lack of a Universal Law that humans could/would abide by. The Atheist Existentialist is embarrassed to claim that there isn't a god and realizes that he has nothing to look up to other than himself. His choices, regardless of consequence, are his responsibility. Thus, who is entrusted with the job of bettering society? We are as individuals. How do we improve society? Through morals and values. The lack of universal law forces us to choose our own morals and values (I mean, these things are subjective if one chooses to not accept the notion of Universal Law), and thusly society's values as well. If person A claims that being dishonest is a negative characteristic, he does so in the name of society, because in his mind the lack of dishonesty will help society progress.

The individualistic nature of existentialism lies only within the concept of 'existence precedes essence.' We are born an empty canvas and are the ones who define the meaning of our lives. My BFF Sartre takes it to a whole new level.

Read a little:

Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. For what we usually understand by wishing or willing is a conscious decision taken – much more often than not – after we have made ourselves what we are. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or to marry – but in such a case what is usually called my will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision. If, however, it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. The word “subjectivism” is to be understood in two senses, and our adversaries play upon only one of them. Subjectivism means, on the one hand, the freedom of the individual subject and, on the other, that man cannot pass beyond human subjectivity. It is the latter which is the deeper meaning of existentialism. When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man’s kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

Secondly, I disagree with your existentialism because you are saying that individual choices and arbitrary decisions by all humans result in the betterment of the world. This is contradictory because not everyone has the same criteria of change and wishes that the world changes differently. You are generalizing and subjecting the human population under the assumption that we will all wish for good and our "personal" decisions will help build a better world. An individual cannot mold society. It is by a union or large scale movement that revolutionizes the world for the better.

Well, of course. Not everyone has a sense of social responsibility. But, I wholeheartedly disagree with your notion that individuals cannot mold society. A 'union or large scale movement,' as you claim, is a group of individuals. You need individuals to be interested and have the right intentions in order to create this 'large scale movement.' But that's far from the point. Individuals are doomed to choose their morals for their fellow man as there is nothing else to abide by. You, however, are treading the grounds of egoism. By choosing to be an egoist you choose that others be egoists as well. It's impossible to escape the responsibility the individual has to his fellow man. In choosing yourself you choose what men should be. If you truly claim being an egoist, misanthropist, nihilist, and, sometimes, a utilitarian, you're a madman.

My misanthropic stance does not equate disregard in terms that I am rebuking what crimes my fellow man had done. You are suggesting that we are all in this slum called humanity together. I agree. Yet that doesn't mean I cannot have a different view on humanity.

You're more than entitled to. By all means, go for it.

Escape? No, I'm more like stating the obvious. There is no remedy to the problem of human nature. As long as humans have preference and thought, there will always be the myriads of problems that inundate society. (Racism, discrimination, sexism, etc.)

But there is no human nature. There are only people who make the right choices for the right reasons, despite the subjectivity. If subject A is sane, mind you, and chooses his values (and thus what he thinks his fellow man ought to be like), and truthfully believes his values - let's say this subject believes lying is good - to be right, then he is a madman.

To claim that human beings are held back by 'human nature' is the same as excusing a coward for his actions because he was born a coward. It's just easier when you deem faults to be inherent features rather than the errors in judgment they truly are.

Do I feel the responsibility? What responsibility? We cannot transcend our nature. Hence there is no such thing as the cowardance you speak of nor the option to change and "fix" things.

Then I would like you to meet my good friend Nihilism. He'll guide you and treat you well through your senseless pursuit of meaninglessness and purposelessness.

Nihilists and misanthropists are better of committing suicide. I mean, it's what they want and what we want.

The irony of your misanthropy is that you'd actually kill yourself but only under the condition you were assured everyone else would die as well. You wouldn't be able to acknowledge it once you're dead anyway.

[qqwref]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

I don't konw if another, different point of view would be much appreciated in this topic, but here goes. Personally I think there is a big difference between disliking humanity in a general sense and disliking all humans. I hate humanity because of all of the problems it has caused to the environment, other humans, and other animals, but that doesn't mean I hate every human; far from it, I like many people who think for themselves and act helpful or friendly towards others. So my position is that I agree with misanthropy - humans viewed as a whole have a fundamental tendency to create problems rather than resolve them - but I do not at all want to see humanity destroyed. If you have a shelf of books and most of them are crumbling from age, you don't have to throw away them all, if you can find a way to maintain or isolate the good ones.

Before you say I'm just acting how society would want, though, my system of morality is different and more open to debate than society's is. My fundamentals are a set of goals, priorities if you will, which I think all actions should go towards accomplishing. For example, for me I value my own survival/happiness, then preservation (of other species, of culture and society, of the environment), then others' survival/happiness as the main ones for me. Instead of just calling everything good or evil, for me every action operates on a continuum where some actions are better than others, depending of course on whose perspective you look at it from. There isn't really a sharp line dividing good and evil, but you could call things which clearly go towards your goals good and things which clearly go against them evil. Nothing is absolutely good or evil.

How does this apply to the "humanity is evil" question? There are definitely people who go against preservation, and there are also people who go towards it. It's entirely probable that there are more people who act to preserve than act to destroy - but the reality is that destruction has far greater impacts. It might take thousands of men to construct a building but only a few to make it collapse; it takes thousands of years to grow a rainforest but it can be cut down in a matter of decades. In every endeavor you will always hear about proportionally more of the people who destroy and hurt, because they are the most interesting and have the largest effects. I really do think that it is possible to get rid of humanity's great destroyers (some of whom have millions of followers, unfortunately) in the same way that it is possible to ban all known cheaters from an FFR tournament. In my view hating humanity because of being evil is similar to hating the FFR community because of cheating; although it makes sense as a belief, it doesn't authorize wholescale destruction.

[rising crescent]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

There is no point in arguing with devonin by restating your points concerning humans and misanthropy. devonin is merely saying that you aren't writing proper English, which completely nullifies everything you are trying to say.

nullifies?wouldnot it appropriate with ..."they just dont Trust what they cannot explain."?

our existence is to give explanation...
though our languange is just rough for now.

The individualistic nature of existentialism lies only within the concept of 'existence precedes essence.' We are born an empty canvas and are the ones who define the meaning of our lives. My BFF Sartre takes it to a whole new level.

sound...you have made up your mind.
but do you still choose sartre's way who directly oppose God's explanation'way?

sartre is one of many famous atheist. they have faith into what empirical and what rational and reject have faith into what spirituality (ghayb in arabic).
everyone who choose same way will only ended-locked in Death Living spirituality and brightly shining minds. they are conquered by their own great Doubt and live in Narrow Living Meaning....

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Please...improve your ability to communicate in written english before you continue posting here.

[cornandbeans]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Good and evil both are concepts humans have created. I think the only thing that ties them down to ground is their relationship to human instinct. For example, stabbing someone with a sword is always going to cause physical pain and a feeling of negativity. Sexual pleasure on the other hand is generally always going to be met with positivity because it feels "good." Honestly I think that the reason there is so much trouble with the words "good" and "evil" is because traditional western morals have sort of changed their meanings into a religious bit.

The reason that a lot of people say that "people are a combination of good and evil at all times" is because they can't accept that everything else besides instinct is a big gray area. This would mean that life is meaningless, and yes that is sort of nihilistic of myself to say that, but honestly if you're waiting to find meaning in life through the terms "good and evil," you never will. As our dear friend Friedrich Nietzsche says, "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."


Hey, I'm not saying that nihilism accomplishes anything, but it sure makes sense.

[FictionJunction]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Except Nietzsche hated nihilists with a passion.

Nietzsche understood the subjectivity of 'good' and 'evil.' Nihilism in regards to such concepts doesn't exist - Nihilism is just the utter meaninglessness of life as a whole, even if good and evil were objective terms.

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

The reason that a lot of people say that "people are a combination of good and evil at all times" is because they can't accept that everything else besides instinct is a big gray area. This would mean that life is meaningless, and yes that is sort of nihilistic of myself to say that, but honestly if you're waiting to find meaning in life through the terms "good and evil," you never will.

I can easily concieve of there being a moral grey area regarding humans and still suggest that there is meaning to life. Just because you can't defend the concepts of good and evil without also claiming a pre-existing set of objective universal morals (which generally requires also claiming a God or Gods) doesn't mean you can't assign all kinds of meaning to your existence. Whether it's to live a good life, or to get as much as you can before you die, or to keep hoping that someone proves God exists before you drop, and retroactively justifies your following all the rules, -meaning- is easy; -intrinsic- meaning is much more difficult.

Remember, not all existentialists ended up being nihilists, so clearly they think you can support that -something- is the point.