The irrational delusion of individual responsibility

Seer Travis Truman · Apr 1, 2010

myp said:
How do you suggest the human population should exist? In what structure, if any?

In any way that is based on and represents Truth. Actions dont matter, Truth matters.

To say that no one is responsible for anything they do is nothing more than an excuse to blame society for one's problems and to relieve humans from the consequences of their actions.

Of course society is to blame, thats what I said. Society's excuse is to blame the children, blame the slaves, blame the individual.

Let us remember that even in the wild where there is no comparable formal society, animals often end up facing the consequences for any good or bad choices they may make in their lives. It is how life works.

There are consequences to action in that sense. Of course making a foolish decision may lead to some undesired effect. But notice that wild animals do NOT have a ridiculous and arbitrary system of rules and blame that they have insanely devised.

How can you say it is diseased? You have no hard scientific evidence for this, so either you are misusing the term "disease" or you are making a claim without any support.

Wrong. Science cannot prove mental disease, that is where you are wrong.

One must identify the disease. The reason I can justly say that the human mind is diseased is based on concrete facts regarding the inability of most humans to recognize and embrace Truth.

myp · Apr 1, 2010

Seer Travis Truman said:
One must identify the disease. The reason I can justly say that the human mind is diseased is based on concrete facts regarding the inability of most humans to recognize and embrace Truth.

What concrete facts? Where are they?

Also, any hard evidence for this "disease"?

Seer Travis Truman · Apr 2, 2010

myp said:
What concrete facts? Where are they?

Also, any hard evidence for this "disease"?

For example : The inability to recognise and embrace Truth itself is absolutely proof that human minds are totally diseased. There could be no greater mental disorder than an inability to handle Truth.

The insane war ritual is one example of the perversity and derangement of human behaviour.

The utterly insane belief in a mysterious "god" creature that monitors the behavioural choices of human beings and judges them.

The mass-sponsered use of children as poison containers due to an unnatural emotional and psychological states.

The drinking of a toxic poisonous liquid called "alchohol" that is designed to damage the brain, mind and body of an individual. Smoking is another example. The fact that a life-form would systematically choose to engage in unnatural self-harming behaviour proves to any sane thinker that the brain of that life-form is not functioning correctly.

adagio · May 26, 2010

>" But notice that wild animals do NOT have a ridiculous and arbitrary system of rules and blame that they have insanely devised."<

Are you suggesting that we live like wild animals??

adagio · May 26, 2010

You state this: The reason I can justly say that the human mind is diseased is based on concrete facts regarding the inability of most humans to recognize and embrace Truth.

You were then asked this: What concrete facts? Where are they?
Also, any hard evidence for this "disease"?

And you respond with this:: The inability to recognise and embrace Truth itself is absolutely proof that human minds are totally diseased. There could be no greater mental disorder than an inability to handle Truth.

That doesn't answer the question. The question was "What concrete facts".... You have simply restated the same thing. That humans cannot handle Truth. That it's a mental disorer, and that the inability to recognise and embrace Truth itself is absolute proof that human minds are totally diseased. You're using your statement to prove itself. That's circular reasoning. The question again, is what concrete facts do you have to support your positive assertion that the human mind is deseased based on concrete facts regarding their ability to recognize and embrace Truth. What are the concrete facts? I take it these are the examples.

>"The insane war ritual is one example of the perversity and derangement of human behaviour."<

The "war ritual" is not necessarily insane. Circumstances vary. What would be insane would be to tolerate intolerance. You can't reason with a man that wants to shoot you. Being a tolerant person or nation does not imply that we should ever tolerate intolerance. That threatens the very existance of tolerance itself. If a nation chooses to take an agressive posture then war may not be avoidable.

>"The utterly insane belief in a mysterious "god" creature that monitors the behavioural choices of human beings and judges them."<

I don't believe in a mysterious "god" creature at all. A lot of people do, and I think it's detremental to society. But it's been there forever and I doubt that it's going to go away soon. As long as I remain diligent to keep it from creeping into legislation and holding it at bay through reason, it's the best I can hope for.

>"The mass-sponsered use of children as poison containers due to an unnatural emotional and psychological states."<

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "poison containers"??

>"The drinking of a toxic poisonous liquid called "alchohol" that is designed to damage the brain, mind and body of an individual. Smoking is another example. The fact that a life-form would systematically choose to engage in unnatural self-harming behaviour proves to any sane thinker that the brain of that life-form is not functioning correctly."<

No it doesn't. What it proves is the fallibility of human beings. We do things that aren't always in our best interests. We're human. And we are fallible. We make mistakes. That's the Truth. That shouldn't be too hard to accept.

Dirk · May 26, 2010

adagio said:
>" But notice that wild animals do NOT have a ridiculous and arbitrary system of rules and blame that they have insanely devised."<

Are you suggesting that we live like wild animals??

Is his point not that we don't live like wild animals?

I'm not sure if i agree with that rationalisation, though.

adagio · May 27, 2010

>"Is his point not that we don't live like wild animals?"<

What I mean to say is...is he suggesting that we should live like animals?

Dirk · May 27, 2010

adagio said:
>"Is his point not that we don't live like wild animals?"<

What I mean to say is...is he suggesting that we should live like animals?

Haha, probably.

I'm pretty sure there are animal societies that have rules, as well, though.

adagio · May 27, 2010

I thought the object was to live beyond the law of the jungle. Silly me. It's that reason thing that keeps inserting itself into my thinking. Go figure!

Seer Travis Truman · May 31, 2010

adagio said:
>" But notice that wild animals do NOT have a ridiculous and arbitrary system of rules and blame that they have insanely devised."<

Are you suggesting that we live like wild animals??

That is not the suggestion. Read it again. Beside, all animals are Superior to humans. You're lives have no Truth-based legitimacy.

adagio said:
I thought the object was to live beyond the law of the jungle. Silly me. It's that reason thing that keeps inserting itself into my thinking. Go figure!

Your version of "reason" is nothing better than bigotry and faulty foundation.

adagio said:
That doesn't answer the question. The question was "What concrete facts".... You have simply restated the same thing.

Hello. 99.99999% of humans in society cannot handle and recognize Truth. That is the correct answer. It is not possible to convince inferiors of any Truth.

One example is the god-myth delusion and war. Only the mal-functioning and deranged human species could believe in a god-creature. Only humans would invent genocidal systems of ritual slaughter of their own species in order to attempt to alleviate their pathological conditions.

These are concrete facts. Any sane thinker can easily determine from even the god-myth delusion that religious people suffer from denial and refusal to face reality.

That humans cannot handle Truth. That it's a mental disorer, and that the inability to recognise and embrace Truth itself is absolute proof that human minds are totally diseased. You're using your statement to prove itself. That's circular reasoning.

It is not circular reasoning, because one is not because of the other.
Any creature out of touch with reality and Truth proves instantly that his mind is diseased. Humans are always denying facts, Truth obvious conclusions in favour of lie-based and insane conclusions based on nothing but assertion.

Example : A priest spends an hour a day "preying to a god creature". This sad excuse for a life form is suffering from a severe mental disorder. His delusion is brought about by the false comfort his insane ideology gives him, in other words he has been unable to deal with Truth and reality.

The question again, is what concrete facts do you have to support your positive assertion that the human mind is deseased based on concrete facts regarding their ability to recognize and embrace Truth. What are the concrete facts? I take it these are the examples.

Seer Travis : "The insane war ritual is one example of the perversity and derangement of human behaviour."

The "war ritual" is not necessarily insane.

Incorrect. Your mind is just another example of the human disease. The war ritual is utterly insane and demented.

Circumstances vary. What would be insane would be to tolerate intolerance. You can't reason with a man that wants to shoot you. Being a tolerant person or nation does not imply that we should ever tolerate intolerance. That threatens the very existance of tolerance itself. If a nation chooses to take an agressive posture then war may not be avoidable.

Pathetic. Obviously BOTH enraged societal leaders tell this garbage to their brain-dead zombie human slaves, and you actually buy this drivel.

To suggest that mass murdering a bunch of complete strangers is a sensible idea because the other "side" also thinks that mass murder is a good idea is retarded.

Seer Travis : "The utterly insane belief in a mysterious "god" creature that monitors the behavioural choices of human beings and judges them."

I don't believe in a mysterious "god" creature at all. A lot of people do, and I think it's detremental to society. But it's been there forever and I doubt that it's going to go away soon. As long as I remain diligent to keep it from creeping into legislation and holding it at bay through reason, it's the best I can hope for.

Click to expand...

Some humans are able to reject one or two of the lies and myths of society. But the rest get you. Legislation has no Truth-based legitimacy. america is a religious and insane nation that is obsessed with its own god delusion.

The point is, however, that most humans in america do, and this proves them mentally diseased and malfunctioning.

"The mass-sponsered use of children as poison containers due to an unnatural emotional and psychological states."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "poison containers"

Click to expand...

Truthmedia.8k.com - and read about it.

Seer Travis : >"The drinking of a toxic poisonous liquid called "alchohol" that is designed to damage the brain, mind and body of an individual. Smoking is another example. The fact that a life-form would systematically choose to engage in unnatural self-harming behaviour proves to any sane thinker that the brain of that life-form is not functioning correctly."<

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. What it proves is the fallibility of human beings. We do things that aren't always in our best interests. We're human. And we are fallible. We make mistakes. That's the Truth. That shouldn't be too hard to accept.

Wrong. Fallibility is not an explanation for the mass use of vile, toxic mind-ruining liquids. Not only is that a self-hating and True-Reality rejecting act, but a symptom of already existing psychological and emotional problems.

Alcohol is used a Truth retardant. The Truth is that you citizen-slaves are just completely incompetent. You are so incompetent you dont even know you are. You are all too blind, deaf and dumb to stop your madness and embrace Truth.

For more information : Truthmedia.8k.com

adagio · May 31, 2010

Seer Travis Truman said:
That is not the suggestion. Read it again. Beside, all animals are Superior to humans. You're lives have no Truth-based legitimacy.

Be carefull of making absolute statements Truman. Somebody...like me for example, might ask you to demonstrate their truth.

Seer Travis Truman said:
Your version of "reason" is nothing better than bigotry and faulty foundation.

And which version would that be Truman? Inductive or Deductive. I'm familiar with the version I use. I can also see which you use. You use inductive reasoning. That's evident in your absolute conclusions. The conclusion of an inductive argument can be proven false by finding one contrary example. (All 10,000 dogs have fleas, therefore all dogs have fleas. Find one dog without fleas and this conclusion is proven false.) But the inductive conclusion can never be proven true unless you exhaust all particulars of the premise. (All you actually know is that some dogs have fleas. You have to examine all dogs to conclude all dogs have fleas.) You make sweeping generalizations based on inductive reasoning.

The conclusion of a valid deductive argument cannot be proven false unless its premises are also proven false, and it cannot be proven true unless its premises are also proven true. In other words, truth or falsehood is dependent upon the premises. I always question the premises of an argument. I've questioned yours. You don't like that, but...there it is.

Induction is generally future oriented. It gathers specific information, then draws a general conclusion which predicts what you will find in the future. Deduction is generally past or present oriented. Presumably, its premises are already tested. It draws from general information, then extracts a specific conclusion which proves the past or present truth.

So getting back to your statement, "Your version of "reason" is nothing better than bigotry and faulty foundation." What version are you talking about, and then show the bigotry and faulty foundation. You can do that, right?

adagio · May 31, 2010

>"Hello. 99.99999% of humans in society cannot handle and recognize Truth. That is the correct answer. It is not possible to convince inferiors of any Truth ."<

You should be able to demonstrate the truth of your statement. Do it. Ultimately determining truth is something inexplicable that humans do. There?s no way to figure out how they do this, such that it can be condensed into a sure fire algorithm. There?s no way to create an algorithm that would determine truth. But...of course you must have come up with one. So..show us the formula. Back in the days of studying Algebra we were told we had to prove our work. You could try a couple of things. First prove your statements are true, because..nobody is really going to simply accept that on your say so. And secondly prove your sense of superiority is grounded in something besides your own inflated opinion of yourself.

>"One example is the god-myth delusion and war. Only the mal-functioning and deranged human species could believe in a god-creature. Only humans would invent genocidal systems of ritual slaughter of their own species in order to attempt to alleviate their pathological conditions.These are concrete facts. Any sane thinker can easily determine from even the god-myth delusion that religious people suffer from denial and refusal to face reality."<

That seems to deny that the malfunctioning and deranged human species is also capable of great works of art, and cures for disease. Some of those very things were created by those with beliefs in the god-creature. Those are also concrete facts. Although I myself am not a believer in the god-creature and might be predisposed to agree with some of what you say, I'm less inclined to make broad sweeping absolute pronouncements of determining what is sane and what is insane according to the world of Adagio. I'm a fallibalist and understand that I could be wrong about some things.

>It is not circular reasoning, because one is not because of the other."<
It is circular reasoning because you're using the statement to prove itself.
"That humans cannot handle Truth. That it's a mental disorer, and that the inability to recognise and embrace Truth itself is absolute proof that human minds are totally diseased. "< You're using your statement to prove itself. That's circular reasoning. For one thing you haven't proved that humans cannot handle truth. Your premise is that humans cannot handle Truth. You haven't proven your premise yet. You're making an assumption and then jumping to a conclusion based on the premise as being true. You haven't proven that. You use examples and cite a priest as if that proves that humans cannot handle Truth. That proves nothing other then a priest devotes his time to being a priest. That says a lot about him but it says nothing about humans in general. You are using inductive reasoning to draw a general conclusion from a specific case. That never proves anything. So...your statement is illogical and rejected as being true. Sorry.

>"The "war ritual" is not necessarily insane."<>" Incorrect. Your mind is just another example of the human disease. The war ritual is utterly insane and demented."<

I hate war. But I also recognize that tolerance of intolerance will destroy a tolerant society. Most advocates of tolerance would agree that we should not tolerate everything. We should not, for example, tolerate injustice, or murder, or attempts to restrict our freedom. And we need not, everything else being equal, tolerate the intolerant. When faced with such a situation in which we are dealing with the insanity of someone else, and no alternative is available, war becomes inevitable.

>"Pathetic. Obviously BOTH enraged societal leaders tell this garbage to their brain-dead zombie human slaves, and you actually buy this drivel."<

No. What we have here is your own inability to recognize Truth. There are agressive personalities in the world and some of them manage to become powerful leaders. Some of them are as insane as the examples you've provided. Why would we or anyone allow insanity to rule over us? Threatened with insanity, you resist it and destroy it if need be.

>" Legislation has no Truth-based legitimacy."<
The Civil Rights Act in America is an example of Truth based Legitimacy.

"have no idea what you're talking about here. "poison containers"?
>"and read about it."< Sorry..I'm not interested in indulging your ego by viewing your website. If you can't explain your views here I'm not inclined to go running all over the place to try to understand what YOU mean.

>"The Truth is that you citizen-slaves are just completely incompetent. You are so incompetent you dont even know you are. You are all too blind, deaf and dumb to stop your madness and embrace Truth."<

The Truth here is that you have a personality disorder. You insist that you must be the bearer of Truth and that you infact possess it. You don't. Sorry to dissappoint you but...That is the Truth. Nobody does. It isn't something that can be possessed. Ultimately determining truth is something inexplicable that humans do. Any positive methodology used to obtain truth only restricts our viewpoint and leads to irrationalism, which is something that you exhibit. For example: How did you arive at your theories of rationality regarding Truth? As this is your meta-theory, it can not judge itself in terms of rationality. Any positive argument in regards to rationality cannot judge itself without creating a circular argument. We've already seen that with you earlier.

You need to go back to the drawing board Mr Truman. You have some loose ends in your theories.

Calvin · May 31, 2010

Seer Travis Truman said:
There is no rational argument to support individual responsibility.

Is the concept of responsibility a fallacy, or is it merely individual responsibility that is a fallacy?

I also do not understand why you believe there are no logical reasons supporting the concept. The law of cause and effect apply to everything.

For instance, if John Doe does not work then John Doe does not make money and he ends up living on the streets. Who is responsible for that outcome?

Answer: John Doe, because he did not work.

Whether John Doe accepts responsibility for that, in other words, whether he accepts that it is him himself who has caused himself to be homeless, is immaterial to the reality that it was.

adagio · May 31, 2010

Calvin said:
Is the concept of responsibility a fallacy, or is it merely individual responsibility that is a fallacy?

I also do not understand why you believe there are no logical reasons supporting the concept. The law of cause and effect apply to everything.

For instance, if John Doe does not work then John Doe does not make money and he ends up living on the streets. Who is responsible for that outcome?

Answer: John Doe, because he did not work.

Whether John Doe accepts responsibility for that, in other words, whether he accepts that it is him himself who has caused himself to be homeless, is immaterial to the reality that it was.

The impression that I got from Truman was that it was the fault of society. They were to blame.

John Doe is a victim of society. At least that's what I got from his posts. Maybe when and if he comes back we'll find out more on this.

Dirk · Jun 1, 2010

Calvin said:
Is the concept of responsibility a fallacy, or is it merely individual responsibility that is a fallacy?

I also do not understand why you believe there are no logical reasons supporting the concept. The law of cause and effect apply to everything.

For instance, if John Doe does not work then John Doe does not make money and he ends up living on the streets. Who is responsible for that outcome?

Answer: John Doe, because he did not work.

Whether John Doe accepts responsibility for that, in other words, whether he accepts that it is him himself who has caused himself to be homeless, is immaterial to the reality that it was.

However, in reality, other beings exist, and will likely have had an effect on the outcome. You presume that he chooses not to work, while he is perfectly able, this is very rarely the case. Then it would be more valid to blame John Doe. Also, to what extent is his socialisation - whether form of, or lack thereof - to blame for the attitude of choosing not to work, when he is perfectly able? Etc, etc.

Calvin · Jun 2, 2010

Dirk said:
However, in reality, other beings exist, and will likely have had an effect on the outcome. You presume that he chooses not to work, while he is perfectly able, this is very rarely the case. Then it would be more valid to blame John Doe. Also, to what extent is his socialisation - whether form of, or lack thereof - to blame for the attitude of choosing not to work, when he is perfectly able? Etc, etc.

Well, my point was more along the lines of - if he doesn't work (for whatever reasons), then he ends up living on the street. Cause and effect. The obtain a grasp on reality we must cut to the heart of realism, and use it as a knife to strip away meaningless philosophy.

Dirk · Jun 2, 2010

Calvin said:
Well, my point was more along the lines of - if he doesn't work (for whatever reasons), then he ends up living on the street. Cause and effect. The obtain a grasp on reality we must cut to the heart of realism, and use it as a knife to strip away meaningless philosophy.

Oh, i see. My points are more practical criticisms, from the view of sociology.

SpayAndNeuterLibs · Jun 2, 2010

While sitting in the hospital, I have had a lot of time to think. A good portion of that time was spent thinking about your thread. I know I'm Lame. Still I think I am starting to understand.

Society says we are suppose to be desirable, not all are. Men are suppose to be providers, not all are. Women are suppose to be nurturers, not all are. Thats starting to make sense.

We too often let society dictate what we become. Instead of letting our own nature, and aspects let us be who we are..

I really don't know how to put into words, what I'm trying to say.

myp · Jun 2, 2010

SpayAndNeuterLibs said:
We too often let society dictate what we become. Instead of letting our own nature, and aspects let us be who we are..

I really don't know how to put into words, what I'm trying to say.

I think I know exactly what you are trying to say and I agree. I really believe that everyone should be able to do what they want with their lives and if it makes them happy and others don't like it, then so be it (so long as they aren't hurting others in the process of course.)

"To each his own."

SpayAndNeuterLibs · Jun 2, 2010

myp said:
I think I know exactly what you are trying to say and I agree. I really believe that everyone should be able to do what they want with their lives and if it makes them happy and others don't like it, then so be it (so long as they aren't hurting others in the process of course.)

"To each his own."

Yes, no one actions should imped the rights of others. I'm trying to understand why we perceive one action to be a right above another. I know an individual right that hinders the rights of others. Should not be allowed.

How do we as a society determine, what is a right and not a right. That is the question I am asking myself.

The irrational delusion of individual responsibility

Similar threads