Free Willy

[Nessus]

I would be appalled. But I don't know why.

Fuzzy's argument is based on implicit assumptions about the role of society and the individual, and I suppose futurology. The merits of these assumptions, when exposed to the light of reason, may or may not be that high. But the question of whether boys and girls should be turned into a product dictated by that searing light is non-trivial.

[EyeKhan]

Well I'm not Alber or Challallahoooobi...so...

I am aware of this point too

@Chaloobi - So, ignore points that don't contribute to your self-fellating? Alright, its not like I'm not used to this behavior from you...

Please leave me out of it if you're up for a fight. I'm not. I am always up for a discussion, I don't like the attacks though.

Fuzzy's argument is based on implicit assumptions about the role of society and the individual, and I suppose futurology. The merits of these assumptions, when exposed to the light of reason, may or may not be that high. But the question of whether boys and girls should be turned into a product dictated by that searing light is non-trivial.

I'm only half following you. Reason you say? Searing light

[Nessus]

I'm only half following you. Reason you say? Searing light

What I got out of Fuzzmeister's post is that human nature (I mean the term in the sense of our inner or mental workings) is a value in and of itself and should thus be a basis for how we consider its reworking. Anger may serve a function for the individual, but removing violent tendencies might, overall, make for a more smoothly functioning society. A society that only exists to make more people, mind you, but that's another story and another discussion. Does the individual's sense of self override the interests of the many, and all that jazz. Molding people for better co-habitation in a global, technology-driven clump of communities might be sensible, but the individuals themselves will probably resent it, because they love their individuality so.

[Illusions]

Please leave me out of it if you're up for a fight. I'm not. I am always up for a discussion, I don't like the attacks though.

You ignored my original post entirely in order to address posts where you could continue with the usual Chaloobiness so please don't say that you're always up for a discussion. You're not. I'm picturing you in my head on an African safari snapping pictures and discussing with the other tourists how wonderful the sights and cultures of Africa are without skipping a beat and completely ignoring a child dead of hunger on the side of a road being eaten by a vulture.

[EyeKhan]

You ignored my original post entirely in order to address posts where you could continue with the usual Chaloobiness so please don't say that you're always up for a discussion. You're not.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I thought Nessus answered you well enough and I just thought I'd add to it. I didn't mean to slight you.

I'm picturing you in my head on an African safari snapping pictures and discussing with the other tourists how wonderful the sights and cultures of Africa are without skipping a beat and completely ignoring a child dead of hunger on the side of a road being eaten by a vulture.

[Illusions]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I thought Nessus answered you well enough and I just thought I'd add to it. I didn't mean to slight you.

You skipped the Harvey Milk quote. Anger is useful. It can motivate people to respond to injustices and atrocities being carried out against themselves and others in a positive manner to affect positive change.

Oh it has nothing to do with the horror of the situation, it just seems that your discussion style is to:

1 - Make an observation (in this case that Africa is wonderful both in its sights and cultures)
2 - Seek out an audience with which to discuss the observation made in 1
3 - Discuss said observation.
4 - Respond to replies:

A - If in agreement with reply, continue discussing observation with the person making this reply.
B - If neutral/less than complete agreement, see how their replies can be made agreeable.
C - Ignore dissenting opinions and replies until agreeable.

5 - Goto 3, Repeat until bored or no agreeable replies.

[EyeKhan]

You skipped the Harvey Milk quote. Anger is useful. It can motivate people to respond to injustices and atrocities being carried out against themselves and others in a positive manner to affect positive change.

Everything I do in anger results in disaster on one level or another. But on the other hand, anger can cool into determination. But I understand your point. Maybe if everyone had their anger neutralized there wouldn't be so much descrimination. Is irrational hatred of the other - in this case gays - independant of anger?

Regarding the rest, forgive me for not replying. If you seriously want to talk about it, I'd be willing to PM over it.

[Illusions]

Maybe if everyone had their anger neutralized there wouldn't be so much descrimination. Is irrational hatred of the other - in this case gays - independant of anger?

I didn't post it because it had to do with discrimination, but because it had to do with channeling anger into a productive force of positive change. There have been numerous situations in human history where a group of people or individuals have experienced intolerable conditions up until the point where enough of them got angry/mad, or angry/mad enough to act and change those conditions. With your drug, this would not have happened.

[Nessus]

I didn't post it because it had to do with discrimination, but because it had to do with channeling anger into a productive force of positive change. There have been numerous situations in human history where a group of people or individuals have experienced intolerable conditions up until the point where enough of them got angry/mad, or angry/mad enough to act and change those conditions. With your drug, this would not have happened.

Would people incapable of anger oppress one another? What a good question Illusions! It is easy to be uncaring, not angry, to harm someone. But would the reversal of anger cause a trend towards empathy? Or did our discussion falsely assume that removing anger would also promote empathy? Hmm.

[EyeKhan]

I didn't post it because it had to do with discrimination, but because it had to do with channeling anger into a productive force of positive change. There have been numerous situations in human history where a group of people or individuals have experienced intolerable conditions up until the point where enough of them got angry/mad, or angry/mad enough to act and change those conditions. With your drug, this would not have happened.

I understand why you posted it. And my question remains the same, would there be intolerable conditions without anger? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in order to further the discussion - lets assume yes. I believe this, btw, because I think intolerable conditions are more about apathy, or as Nessus pointed out, a lack of empathy. The real question here is whether anger is required to make change. I've seen a lot of anger do nothing much good. Maybe its the thoughtful, carefully planned and articulated action that often follows the anger that makes positive change. And does that followup action require anger?

Going back to Harvey Milk - do you think people are more accepting of gays because of anger? I'm skeptical.

[GGT]

I get the impression no one read the linked essay in full

When it spoke of Freud, I thought of Kellogg, and other historical things we did toward "soma", including lobotomies and ECT.

People have self-medicated for centuries (Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs isn't working) but now we have the Information Age and 24/7 stimuli. We are the 'take a pill' people. Sometimes it's a vitamin (as ginko was an example) or exercise to get endorphins, or certain foods to balance chemistry (diabetes). Thrill seekers love adrenalin, it can be addictive too.

We are a mess of chemicals and hormones, with perceptions which can be altered by chemicals and hormones. Also, environment (Pavlov's dog) and learned experience can alter our brains' ecperiences....put a gun in Ogre's hand and he might get excited, but put a gun in my hand and I'll get scared.

A certain amount of angst or dysphoria can be motivating, even inspiring. It can be difficult to weed thru the things we now consider "abnormal" or ineffective (per essay, the young-elderly, ADD or depression). It's commercial now, just watch tv or scan web ad banners, erectile dysfunction, insomnia, obesity, bladder control---we can all name the pill---then we ask the doctor and s/he readily complies.

[Illusions]

Would people incapable of anger oppress one another? What a good question Illusions! It is easy to be uncaring, not angry, to harm someone.

I'm trying to get Chaloobi to see this point. Oppression can be the result of any number of things besides anger, and while we could potentially make drugs to combat all of them, we'd eventually be entering the area of making everyone a human puppet. It would not be a functional society in the least.

But would the reversal of anger cause a trend towards empathy? Or did our discussion falsely assume that removing anger would also promote empathy? Hmm.

I'm not exactly certain how a reversal of anger would lead to greater empathy between people. If someone is angry and I empathize with them, how would I continue to do so if administered Chaloobi's drug?

I believe this, btw, because I think intolerable conditions are more about apathy, or as Nessus pointed out, a lack of empathy.

You can empathize with someone and still desire the current oppressive course of action more.

The real question here is whether anger is required to make change.

It is not, but it is useful when all those other motivators fail.

I've seen a lot of anger do nothing much good.

We could be at this all day with that reasoning. History has also shown that it can bring about good. Obviously it can do either or, so perhaps the issue is how to get people to use their anger for good instead of how to quell anger entirely, through the use of chemicals. Fear is also a powerful motivator. Shall we never fear again because you feel it is negative? Hope apparently is too...what about that?

Going back to Harvey Milk - do you think people are more accepting of gays because of anger? I'm skeptical.

That wasn't Milk's only goal. His other was to bring about positive change for gays in his particular area, to bring them together as a group, and also raise awareness of the issues affecting them. I'd have to say he accomplished that.

[EyeKhan]

I'm trying to get Eyekhan to see this point. Oppression can be the result of any number of things besides anger, and while we could potentially make drugs to combat all of them, we'd eventually be entering the area of making everyone a human puppet. It would not be a functional society in the least.

I'm not exactly certain how a reversal of anger would lead to greater empathy between people. If someone is angry and I empathize with them, how would I continue to do so if administered Eyekhan drug?

#1. You may call me EyeKhan or some variation of that now. Please don't call me by my old name anymore. Thanks.

#2. I think anger is a flash in the pan thing. It can lead to resolve. It can also lead to hatred. It can also lead right back to apathy - ie "just blowing off some steam." I don't think getting rid of anger would lead to less oppression or greater empathy.

#3. We're all human puppets on one level or another anyway; I suspect probably more than we know.

Obviously it can do either or, so perhaps the issue is how to get people to use their anger for good instead of how to quell anger entirely, through the use of chemicals. Fear is also a powerful motivator. Shall we never fear again because you feel it is negative? Hope apparently is too...what about that?

Well, I did say I'd be appalled to actually do something like that. Maybe you missed that.

I think anger wouldn't be the right emotion to quell. Likely fear is the better one. Probably at the basis of most of the heinous things we do to each other is fear. And of course at the basis of that is ignorance. And that's where empathy comes in - assuming the fear is based on false assumptions, ignorance can be quelled by knowing, via empathy, the true feelings of the people we fear and presumably knowing they don't mean us real harm as long as we don't mean them harm. Assuming they don't.

I'd have to say he accomplished that.

By making gay people angry?

EDIT: Can you even have competition without fear?

[Illusions]

#1. You may call me EyeKhan or some variation of that now. Please don't call me by my old name anymore. Thanks.

How about "The Poster Formally Known as Chaloobi"? No? I only use your name because its an easy reference for everyone else, so...since everyone else knew you as Chaloobi, that is what I call you. Since you can't stop being Chaloobi, Chaloobi you shall be. If you really want me to call you EyeKhan, convince me why the change is necessary, and it will be made.

#2. I think anger is a flash in the pan thing. It can lead to resolve. It can also lead to hatred. It can also lead right back to apathy - ie "just blowing off some steam." I don't think getting rid of anger would lead to less oppression or greater empathy.

Thinking something is a wonderful thing until it is shown to be wrong by history. How would you resolve past occurrences where a number of angry people rose up to change what was making them angry, and other people joined them in their endeavor out of empathy?

I think anger wouldn't be the right emotion to quell. Likely fear is the better one. Probably at the basis of most of the heinous things we do to each other is fear. And of course at the basis of that is ignorance. And that's where empathy comes in - assuming the fear is based on false assumptions, ignorance can be quelled by knowing, via empathy, the true feelings of the people we fear and presumably knowing they don't mean us real harm as long as we don't mean them harm. Assuming they don't.

Fear is also the thing that keeps certain people from running into dark caves without checking if its safe, speeding down highways at 120 mph, or doing other incredibly stupid and dangerous things. Emotions are only negative because you let them be, or want them to be.

By making gay people angry?

They were already angry...I'm not sure you're understanding the situation...

EDIT: Can you even have competition without fear?

Yes.

[LittleFuzzy]

What I got out of Fuzzmeister's post is that human nature (I mean the term in the sense of our inner or mental workings) is a value in and of itself and should thus be a basis for how we consider its reworking. Anger may serve a function for the individual, but removing violent tendencies might, overall, make for a more smoothly functioning society. A society that only exists to make more people, mind you, but that's another story and another discussion. Does the individual's sense of self override the interests of the many, and all that jazz. Molding people for better co-habitation in a global, technology-driven clump of communities might be sensible, but the individuals themselves will probably resent it, because they love their individuality so.

I can accept the claim that there's an implicit focus on the individual in what I said. Certainly fields like medicine and psychology, which this discussion impinges upon, tend to focus on the individual. My (limited) understanding is that the pure suppression of a set of feelings tends to result in compensatory disorders. I would argue that if this is the case, if this happens on the individual level, then what we would see in a society that engages in such pure suppression is great masses of people suffering mental illness, and I would argue such a systemic problem would, practically by definition, mark such a society as "unhealthy."

As for why Chaloobi thinks he would be appalled but does not know why, I think I would characterize that sort of practice as deliberate emotional mutilation. It is a severing of part of oneself.

[GGT]

Fear is a learned response tho. The body makes the same chemicals and hormones for anxiety, excitement, thrill and fear. As little kids we learned this from riding bikes, swimming, doing new things that had danger but were "fun". First dates, making a speech, flying in airplanes.

We have a generation of students who now take performance-enhancing meds before taking SATs. (I knew a med student who took a beta-blocker before his orals, just to slow his heart rate.)

[Loki]

I see Nessus is still engaging in the absurd reductionist logic that if only individuals were wiped of certain traits, society would be wiped of them as well.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think anger wouldn't be the right emotion to quell. Likely fear is the better one. Probably at the basis of most of the heinous things we do to each other is fear. And of course at the basis of that is ignorance. And that's where empathy comes in - assuming the fear is based on false assumptions, ignorance can be quelled by knowing, via empathy, the true feelings of the people we fear and presumably knowing they don't mean us real harm as long as we don't mean them harm. Assuming they don't.

By making gay people angry?

EDIT: Can you even have competition without fear?

I don't know about competition, but I don't think high order k-selection organisms can survive long-term without fear.

[Nessus]

I can accept the claim that there's an implicit focus on the individual in what I said. Certainly fields like medicine and psychology, which this discussion impinges upon, tend to focus on the individual. My (limited) understanding is that the pure suppression of a set of feelings tends to result in compensatory disorders. I would argue that if this is the case, if this happens on the individual level, then what we would see in a society that engages in such pure suppression is great masses of people suffering mental illness, and I would argue such a systemic problem would, practically by definition, mark such a society as "unhealthy."

As for why Chaloobi thinks he would be appalled but does not know why, I think I would characterize that sort of practice as deliberate emotional mutilation. It is a severing of part of oneself.

Certainly. The devil's advocate I've been playing in this thread would say, however, that either these disorders would be dealt with otherwise (say via socialist sex dolls, or whatever to alleviate pent up frustration) or made nonexistent with other drugs. Since we are on the plane of the hypothetical, after all.

The point is that a majority of human emotions are detrimental, after all, to a society of reasoning beings. Your "side" (I apologize for the term) would argue that humanity has no business being creatures of reasoning alone, because that would deprive us of what makes us human. In a way. Chambawayjambalayadahaladardeeljingerwaduuhalaya and I are questioning whether that is good, whatever good may be. It is a difficult topic and I don't think I know enough to do anything but make jabs in the dark.

[Nessus]

I see Nessus is still engaging in the absurd reductionist logic that if only individuals were wiped of certain traits, society would be wiped of them as well.

I didn't know I was making authoritative arguments

[Illusions]

The point is that a majority of human emotions are detrimental, after all, to a society of reasoning beings.

If you have a society of reasoning beings they should be able to deal with and use their human emotions in a manner which isn't detrimental to society as a whole. I'm not understanding why this is so difficult to grasp for people. There is no mandate that because you are angry with someone that you go and murder them, or that because you are fearful you shouldn't act, or because you experience jealousy or envy that you have to make someone's life worse. The person has chosen to act in a negative manner, the option was there for a positive action and they did not take it.

[Loki]

I didn't know I was making authoritative arguments

That means you can engage in fallacies at will? And I didn't realize we had any philosophers here who actually could make authoritative arguments on this issue.

[Nessus]

I see Nessus is still engaging in the absurd reductionist logic that if only individuals were wiped of certain traits, society would be wiped of them as well.

I can see why you'd think it's reductionist logic (what a term!), though. You have a deep-seated belief that human nature is what it is, and that everything that happens has to adapt to this perception. This, IMO, seems to be the basis of not only your economic stance (beliefs?), but the background to your logic on human interaction. It is rather sad in a way, but I suppose it brings you personal satisfaction and guarantees a modicum of success in your profession of choice, so I don't really see the point in arguing with you about it.

[Loki]

I can see why you'd think it's reductionist logic (what a term!), though. You have a deep-seated belief that human nature is what it is, and that everything that happens has to adapt to this perception. This, IMO, seems to be the basis of not only your economic stance (beliefs?), but the background to your logic on human interaction. It is rather sad in a way, but I suppose it brings you personal satisfaction and guarantees a modicum of success in your profession of choice, so I don't really see the point in arguing with you about it.

No, I'm saying that even if you were to fundamentally change human nature, you would not necessarily change societal dynamics. Even if people didn't get angry, there would still be murders, and there would still be inter-societal conflicts. Even if people weren't greedy, there would be inequality. Even if people were all intelligent, there would be extremism. You assume that outcomes at the societal levels are based almost entirely on the characteristics of the individuals who make up that society. That is a reductionist fallacy.

[Nessus]

No, I'm saying that even if you were to fundamentally change human nature, you would not necessarily change societal dynamics. Even if people didn't get angry, there would still be murders, and there would still be inter-societal conflicts. Even if people weren't greedy, there would be inequality. Even if people were all intelligent, there would be extremism. You assume that outcomes at the societal levels are based almost entirely on the characteristics of the individuals who make up that society. That is a reductionist fallacy.

Buttsex is bad because buttsex is sodomy? Maybe I am struggling in the dark here, but what kind of mathematical proof can you demonstrate that self-aware beings need to be sadistic, or murder? If such a result exists, I'd be quite surprised fields such as psychiatry even exist today, let alone philosophers.

[GGT]

So, the essay is "reductionist theory" because it talks about the individuals being medicated, to fit into society and/or perform better?

[Loki]

Buttsex is bad because buttsex is sodomy? Maybe I am struggling in the dark here, but what kind of mathematical proof can you demonstrate that self-aware beings need to be sadistic, or murder? If such a result exists, I'd be quite surprised fields such as psychiatry even exist today, let alone philosophers.

The reality that a large chunk of murders are committed by rational individuals who aren't acting based on emotions? Or we generalize this to civil or interstate war, most decisions to fight are not made by leaders who are acting out of anger. The soldiers might or might not be angry when they kill other soldiers (or civilians), but they make the decision to go into combat without that anger.

So, the essay is "reductionist theory" because it talks about the individuals being medicated, to fit into society and/or perform better?

A reductionist claim is saying that the characteristics of units in a system can explain the outcomes of that system.

[Nessus]

The reality that a large chunk of murders are committed by rational individuals who aren't acting based on emotions? Or we generalize this to civil or interstate war, most decisions to fight are not made by leaders who are acting out of anger. The soldiers might or might not be angry when they kill other soldiers (or civilians), but they make the decision to go into combat without that anger.

What I was driving at, Low-key, was that I find it a preposterous assumption to think that all sentient life must be exactly alike. You berated me for making that assumption, whether you knew it or not, and called it a fallacy. Because you have been taught by your field to know certain things about the way a populace works. The fallacy in applying that to the discussion at hand should be obvious. Or maybe it isn't? You have had odd ideas about the uniqueness of human existence before.

My ponderings, such as they were, were never about the units of the system per se, it was about the collective of their behaviour.

[Loki]

What I was driving at, Low-key, was that I find it a preposterous assumption to think that all sentient life must be exactly alike. You berated me for making that assumption, whether you knew it or not, and called it a fallacy. Because you have been taught by your field to know certain things about the way a populace works. The fallacy in applying that to the discussion at hand should be obvious. Or maybe it isn't? You have had odd ideas about the uniqueness of human existence before.

My ponderings, such as they were, were never about the units of the system per se, it was about the collective of their behaviour.

I claimed nothing about the characteristics of people. I said that you cannot make claims about societal outcomes based on the characteristics of people, regardless of what those characteristics happen to be.

[Nessus]

I claimed nothing about the characteristics of people. I said that you cannot make claims about societal outcomes based on the characteristics of people, regardless of what those characteristics happen to be.

I'd still like to see a mathematical proof to this end.