Opinions on Corrupt.org

[Arthyron]

I've admittedly only read a few articles from Corrupt, but my reaction is a mixed one.

I find myself agreeing with some points, and not so much with others. Given that my philosophy differs greatly from the largely Nihilistic tendencies of Corrupt and similar websites, it's amazing that I have agreed with so much thus far.

They seem to have good heads on their shoulders and do present some very thought-provoking articles, if not societally beneficial ones. I just think they seem to come off as somewhat pretentious, thinking of their own system of thought as superior to others, but given the tenets of Nihilism (where value is assigned by the individual), it's understandable.

 

[Έρεβος]

I believe this topic should be extended to "Opinions on corrupt.org, and anus.com." Well, I guess they are basically the same, and intertwined - but anus.com also has many great articles.

 

[Korona]

Our knowledge of good and bad is entirely dependent on experience, although we come pre-programmed with some knowledge.

Normally people at least end the sentance before contradicting themselves...

 

[Horus]

What it probably means is that we come preprogrammed with Knowledge, but it's something that can in fact change. It's like the presets on a digital guitar amp. [simplified musician-talk]It comes with preset tones, but you can still edit them to whatever tone you're looking for.[/simplified musician talk] The human mind in a sense can be the same People can be easily made to think abd act in a mew manner. But that also does depend on the person, because while some people have minds made out of play-doh and can be convinced of anything, other people are harder to influence or change.

 

[Korona]

The key word is entirely, if your knowledge of good and evil is entirely derived through experience then how can it be also innate?

To Reign in Hell
If its intended to be serious then it's drivel - if it's meant satirically then its bloody genious.

 

[Έρεβος]

Normally people at least end the sentance before contradicting themselves...

1) The sentence is out of context as you've quoted it here.

2) I see no obvious contradiction; it depends on what the writer meant by the second use of the word "knowledge." If he/she didn't mean knowledge pertaining to what "good" and what is "bad" then there is no contradiction. I would say he/she probably meant something more on the lines of innate knowledge not pertaining to good and bad directly, but used to determine what is right and wrong through experience. No contradiction.

3) Even if the writer did mean knowledge of right and wrong by the second term (which I see no reason to believe such), he/she is human, and a small error such as "entirely" is just nitpicking on your part.


One error I see them making in some of their articles is leaving a bit too much room for misinterpretation, either that or they expect all of their readers to be highly intelligent (which doesn't seem so far-fetched).

Edit:
Haha, I just read the article. It is serious, and by no means satirical humor or drivel. But I can see how horribly you probably missed the entire article, just by your one comment. The problem with that one sentence was taking out of context mostly, and probably misinterpretation while it was in context.

It said ...

Our knowledge of good and bad is entirely dependent on experience, although we come pre-programmed with some knowledge. Snakes are for the most part bad, in our genetic heritage, and depending on where our families originated, there may be other primal fears and primal desires. Germans seem to like order and cleanliness over all else, where to an Italian, a warm house full of good food takes precedence. What we all share that is not learned is a knowledge that some things will end well, and others will not. If we are attuned to ourselves, we become uneasy deep in our gut when we are part of a course of action that we suspect will not end well.

This is saying all knowledge of good and bad is entirely dependent on experience, but not just personal experience. Rather, innate experience handed down through many generations of experience. I've studied this in a gifted class, how we have dreams pertaining to "primal fears" of things such we have likely never experienced personally in any way. Some examples of innate knowledge of "bad" would be: tendancies in potentially dangerous situations (such as being startled by loud noises, or the like), and innate fears of certain creatures and objects (such as snakes - as noted in the article, especially those that are brightly colored). And some examples of innate knowledge of "good" would be: tendancies to do certain things that innate knowledge says are "good" (as it gave examples of Germans and Italians.) The article words it better than me though, packing alot more than I over-simplified into that one paragraph.

 

[Korona]

You can't have "innate experience" what kind of madness is that? You can have knowlege which is innate only by virtue of the fact that it DOESN'T derive from experience. That is the very core of the distinction between innate and empirical knowledge...
Also the evidence offered is even more priceless!
The fact Germans are neat and Italians are "messy"??? That begs the question of nature/nurture in the most catastrophic way possible! If you really think that Germans are neat (I would have said the Swiss but anyway) because of their genetics then I think you need to get out of the 19th centurary and into the modern world.

 

[Έρεβος]

You can't have "innate experience" what kind of madness is that? You can have knowlege which is innate only by virtue of the fact that it DOESN'T derive from experience. That is the very core of the distinction between innate and empirical knowledge...

Incorrect. Knowledge that is innate is derived from experience, simply not your own experience. There have been numerous studies on this innate experience, that which is passed down through generations. It is a form of mental evolution, that we develope tendancies to do certain things or avoid/react in a certain way to things that is most beneficial for us.

The fact Germans are neat and Italians are "messy"??? That begs the question of nature/nurture in the most catastrophic way possible! If you really think that Germans are neat (I would have said the Swiss but anyway) because of their genetics then I think you need to get out of the 19th centurary and into the modern world.

Where did you get that? It said one positive thing that is [generally] innately important to the German people, due to passed down experience as to what is most beneficial or "good," and one positive thing that is important to Italians due to their experience in their own environment, passed down though generations developing into the innate mindset of the Italian people. It never said "Italian people are messy" or "German people are neat." It was an example, and one that is generally evident in behavioral correlations of those nations - not some absolute rule the writer was stating as gospel.

I think you need to get yourself out of the 21st century of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Korona]

What you give an example of isn't "knowledge". Using the example - the instinctual fear of a snake could be well based on people "experiencing" death by snake, and thus those who were wary around these animals survived. However to evolve that response you don't need knowledge of why the snake is dangerous. All you are left with by way of "knowledge" is stuff like "I know I am fearful" or "I know snakes are fear-causing".

Paraphrasing your quote from the artical was meant to highlight the juxtaposition and bring out the contrast that was trying to be drawn by the artical, although it was a paraphrasing and hence the "scare quotes".
My critisim of the passage wasn't that Germans (or the Swiss) aren't typically neat, but that it was a demonstration of "innate" forces, rather than behaviour taught through experience. Indeed cultural differences between people who share the same genetic makeup is a paradigm case of nurture and against the idea of "natural trends".
Another idea that used to be popular was that the Germans were "naturally nationalistic and warlike". 60 years after world war two and Germany is looking weirdly passifictic. Strange how the genetic heritage of a country changed so dramatically in a couple of generations huh?...
As for the idea that "The German people" have existed for anything like enough time, or in genetic isolation enough to develop a distinctive set of "innate" cultural traits is laughable. The implication seems to be that if you took a German orphan and gave her to adoptive parents in Italy she would grow up to be forever cleaning the place... What nonsense.

What's next - that we can identify criminals by their prominent foreheads???

 

[Camai]

What you give an example of isn't "knowledge". Using the example - the instinctual fear of a snake could be well based on people "experiencing" death by snake, and thus those who were wary around these animals survived. However to evolve that response you don't need knowledge of why the snake is dangerous. All you are left with by way of "knowledge" is stuff like "I know I am fearful" or "I know snakes are fear-causing".

'Knowledge' is an awfully complex concept to be adequately defined in one or two lines of smugly subliterate prose. I would suggest that you moderate your intellectual pretensions, or you'll find yourself casually dismissed by people that have what we call, in the technical jargon of the discipline, a 'clue.'

 

[Camai]

As for the idea that "The German people" have existed for anything like enough time, or in genetic isolation enough to develop a distinctive set of "innate" cultural traits is laughable. The implication seems to be that if you took a German orphan and gave her to adoptive parents in Italy she would grow up to be forever cleaning the place... What nonsense.

Genetic divergence doesn't take all that long. The art of animal husbandry has been creating new 'breeds' within four or five generations for millennia. That ethnicities often have a distinctive physical type is pretty well established. Given the genetic components of many neurological and behavioural traits, it would be shocking indeed if distinctive ethnic 'personality' types didn't develop as well.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Ironically, I'd sum up the site by a quote I found on one of its articles:

"From under a rock perhaps the problems of our world are invisible."

Is this a nod to the social ignorance of their entire staff?

 

[Έρεβος]

Ironically, I'd sum up the site by a quote I found on one of its articles:

"From under a rock perhaps the problems of our world are invisible."

Is this a nod to the social ignorance of their entire staff?

A nod to yours, perhaps?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Ironically, I'd sum up the site by a quote I found on one of its articles:

"From under a rock perhaps the problems of our world are invisible."

Is this a nod to the social ignorance of their entire staff?

So you are saying the CORRUPT staff can't see any problems with the world...

 

[hibernal_dream]

No, i'm saying that many of the problems they see from under their rock don't actually exist.

 

[Norsemaiden]

No, i'm saying that many of the problems they see from under their rock don't actually exist.

I hope you are right. That would be wonderful. Can you list any of these problems that don't actually exist? Perhaps some of us have fallen into an irrational pessimism, but I, for one,am always willing to allow a kind soul to pull me out of it, with a sound argument.

 

[Έρεβος]

No, i'm saying that many of the problems they see from under their rock don't actually exist.

Anyone can make hollow claims. Now try and back them up. What problems don't exist, exactly?

 

[hibernal_dream]

You're mistaken in thinking I can prove these problems exist or don't exist by argument. I can only state empirical facts, for example the fact that neither me nor most of my friends or family have an "existential crisis", live comfortable lifestyles in front of the tv or neglect the environment.

Edit: I should state I found a trend in the Corrupt articles: stating the obvious 'problems' without analysing how these problems came about. Yes, a lot of people live their lives in front of the tv abusing the environment, while self-serving governments tend to popular whims but what's the use of pointing out the obvious? The pieces on the site always seem little more than undergrad attempts at classification, putting behaviour and things into groups and categories. Having a different worldview is fine, but don't simply apply it to what you see without looking at how it came about - that's like waking up from a coma after a car crash and complaining that you have a broken leg.

 

[Έρεβος]

You're mistaken in thinking I can prove these problems exist or don't exist by argument. I can only state empirical facts, for example the fact that neither me nor most of my friends or family have an "existential crisis", live comfortable lifestyles in front of the tv or neglect the environment.

Edit: I should state I found a trend in the Corrupt articles: stating the obvious 'problems' without analysing how these problems came about. Yes, a lot of people live their lives in front of the tv abusing the environment, while self-serving governments tend to popular whims but what's the use of pointing out the obvious? The pieces on the site always seem little more than undergrad attempts at classification, putting behaviour and things into groups and categories. Having a different worldview is fine, but don't simply apply it to what you see without looking at how it came about - that's like waking up from a coma after a car crash and complaining that you have a broken leg.

More empty statements. =)

If you wish to sound credible, giving examples might be a good idea, or making real arguments for your claims. Otherwise, there is really nothing to respond to.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I should state I found a trend in the Corrupt articles: stating the obvious 'problems' without analysing how these problems came about.

- hibernal_dream

Would you say that criticism applies to this?
http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/women/articles/magazines/

Conclusion:

All this artifice, unsustainable consumerism and introspective neuroticism is destroying society. What is needed is a rejection of all this falseness and a return to reality.