Human Insanity 

Aside from what ‘popular’ form of reason, I rejext the ideal of absolute cultural relativism in certain cases. Those men who believe this is right should be eliminated.

Insane Anachronistic Cultural-Religious practice.
We, as an ethical people, need stop deferring our human values to insane values. 
We are not all insane. But certain groups are beyond ‘intervention’.  

As you might expect, also, I support the death penalty for convicted pedophiles and rapists. 
Just a thought. 

Have a nice day. 


14 thoughts on “Human Insanity 

  1. … tacking onto The enlightenment thing, about responsibility to the unenlightened:

    I wonder if you are familiar with the book written by ram Dass called “be here now”. I am not necessarily a proponent or advocate of whatever philosophy might be found in that book, but there is an interesting story that he tells in the beginning of the book the first part of the book about how he came to change his approach on the world.

    In this story he says that he was brought to this village that had like a patron saint that the villagers said was so enlightened that they had to have someone from the village with him at all times or he would disappear. They said that if there were some issues that needed tending in the village, the saint would say oranges to generate karma so he would become more manifest in this world and be able to deal with the matter.

  2. I think in terms of rehabilitating the worst criminals, it depends on the case. Whatever they are doing in Scandinavia in their prisons seems to be working. I understand the desire to have a society in which these crimes are considered completely immoral, but the problem is if you look at the actual data, prison time just increases the rate of recidivism. That’s what Foucault talks about in Discipline and Punish- how we think we are more moral now, but we are just using another form of the public gallows. I think the idea that those people are irredeemable is used by an excuse by the right wing to not give adequate funding to prisons, human rights violations, private prisons, etc. The Left has the right idea when it comes to prisoners rights, including abolition of the death penalty. So yeah I disagree with Zizek about that completely

    1. Kill ’em. 🙂 Get rid of the ‘bad’ people. Don’t give longer prison time, don’t try to rehabilitate them: Remove them from our plane of existence. Its odd to me I haven’t read Foucault’s book about prison , but As Im sure you’ve heard similar (Is it from Foucault’s ?) , the idea behind the penitent-ary was that all people are inherently good, but just had a messed up life of sorts, and they just needed to reflect a little bit.

      I am not so humanly relative, nor holistically optimistic. If you have read some of my posts, Im am not an advocate for “the common humanity”. But the distinction I make is a little more involved; I say we can’t reduce all human (experience-behavior) to a knowable common reasoning or rationality, that such rationale, because it fails at times, indicates that such ideal is really a religious type of position’; the religious ideal takes up the failure to make sense of it in light of “gods grace” (common humanity).

      Anyways. I also don’t hold absolutes to a ‘common’ absolute. There is a kind of absolute humanity that allows for the disease concept of addiction, so those criminals need not be killed because indeed their otherwise goodness is commandeered by the necessity to get the drug. So we trust our system and its principles and the inherent goodness of the people who actively support the institution (public servants), and trust the principles: That the inherently ‘good’ people/decisions will check the inherently ‘bad’ people/decisions. That we will judge people based on what evidence is available, trust that the time frames we give people to develop their cases is just, that the technology we have now is sufficient for our moment, etc. and if they are found guilty of rape of murder: death. Maybe one appeal and then thats it: quickly, efficiently, under the conditions of our moral social trust. saves money, stress, and then we could open up a whole new commercial sector for people who need to grieve over how screwed up their child/friend was. just kidding. (Hey! that sound like a new profession: Therapists who specialize in treating dissatisfaction with systemic and or governmental decisions. lol sounds kind like 1984, or some novel of totalitarian future. lol )

      Im kind of opinionated. lol

      If you are found guilty, your rights are very little in jail. Probably, though, all the money wed save from not holding and processing and retrials all these (worthless) people (who should be dead), it would probably fund a better rehabilitation project.

      1. I understand your skepticism, but I’ll quote Gandalf in my response to why we should abolish the death penalty. If you are an LOTR fan, you’ll remember what Gandalf said to Frodo about Gollum. “Many who live deserve to die, and some who die deserve life. Who are YOU to give it to them?” Gollum was a despicable creature who deserved to die, but in the end he had a part to play. All I’m saying is, like you said before, we like the idea of all the undesirables not being around, but we don’t want to do the dirty work. That natural human impulse not to kill is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing that should be controlled and given up for the sake of the state. Because the “greater good” mentality is how people can kill in the service of the state, and is responsible for the horrors of the 20th century. You get what I’m saying?

      2. Yes. totally.

        Maybe I am arrogant , but raping my wife or daughter (my goto justification lol) I think would be the only thing to yield from me response of actually being able to kill. so. IDK. I am not so sure how conventionally ethical I am, I guess. Im a little screwed up, I think 🙂

        If I can get really philosophical: In the ideal that contains ‘the subject (thinker)’ and ‘the object’ (any sort- of thought, empirical,sensory, etc..) there should be a consistency of some kind. We strive for this consistency. It is a part of pretty much everything we (a human beings) do. It is an ideal that stems from what we think is a ‘self’: That what I think is necessarily consistent with what I think. do , etc.. (the thought I have is indeed a thought that “I” am having”, etc..identity of sorts)That there is some kind of ‘whole’ person’ that remains consistent with itself even as it deals with inconsistencies of itself; the inconsistencies, say depression or all the reasons why psychology and therapy exists, but also the “I really want to be and do such and such, but I am alas only a such and such”, are a part of the consistency that is self. We could even say that ‘spirituality’ itself is the process of dealing with the consistency of personal, or conceptual inconsistencies.

        Zizek has a cool question: Does the enlightened subject have a responsibility to ‘return’ to the unenlightened world to try to enlighten them? One of his points has to do with ‘essences’: IF this world is a transitory illusion of sorts, then the enlightened subject, once having attained enlightenment would have not only no reason to return, but indeed would not be able to return due to the essential transformation. And then, if he does return, what kind of responsibility does she have? As a well: Is any communication possible between such states?

        I am not sure of such ‘subjective’ consistency. I mean this with the question of whether or not there Is a consistency of thought to action. What is the possibilities involved if thought had little correspondence with activity? Are there thoughts without a corresponding act (besides the ‘act’ of thought as a pure mental activity)? What is the conditions where No thought yields a consistent act?

        In this way I see the Good as a necessary disjunction from subject to object. The philosophy of enlightenment (the general category I place modernity) says that the state of Being has a necessary relation with the political state, and there by cannot escape an inherent obligation back and forth.

        I consider that the state occurs despite what my intentionality might be. That every act I make necessarily yields something totally inconsistent with my desires (the thought-object conduit). And yet, I still act. This activity thus maintains a certain locality that is completely different from, what we can then proper call , the proper political-ideological state.

        I am ethical in that people have a right to live and act, and that I behave with what I encounter toward a existential force that is not myself but of one that involves me, but I am unethical in as much as I Do not have the authority upon introspection over whether someone justly deserves death; that job is for the political-ideological state, because of the common trust that is invested of it that I do not possess.

        But this is mostly philosophical, I kind of psychoanalytical position.

        Besides this: History is filled with all sorts of killing for all sorts of reasons. Im not sure that our time is any different than any other; we just justify it differently, under different terms.

        That said, a question for the political state: Is killing a fundamentally different order of activity than say, rehabilitating?

      3. So in my mind, you are conventionally ethical. And that isn’t an insult, its a pure statement. I see that position as the conventional ethical position, and the position that we shouldn’t murder murderers as the hard to swallow conclusion. For me its like a classic dialectical switch- some people say for the Greater Good we should swallow our ethical instincts and follow through on getting rid of those problem people. I think this is too easy for some people, like imagine the freaks that get to do all the executions. They probably love it. In terms of Zizek’s position on this subject, I think its kind of odd how he extols the uniqueness of the Christian ethic of “love thy neighbor” and talks about how the neighbor isn’t your friend and then is for the death penalty. I’m all for strict punishment of those criminals, but as far as the death penalty, maybe some of them would rather die, but idk. The problem is that there are literally different notions of ethics going on here. The cool thing about Zizek is he definitely problematizes all these things in that he shows how they can fit within a certain schema/ideology. For instance, even though killing is abhorrent to me in theory, if my family were threatened, I think my quasi-Buddhist ethics would be put to the test. There are people who I would actually argue for the death penalty for, people who deserve to die probably because it would result in either political unrest or because their crime was too great (serial killers, mass murderers). So (in my mind) its not that I’m trying to argue for a kind of humanism that proceeds from the Western model, if that makes any sense. I think the right to life over people is something categorically different, something Zizek probably needs to problematize more. All major atrocities committed in the 20th century had one thing in common- they were by states

  3. I was going to make a post about just this subject when I saw a video about these Christian fundamentalists who starved their child to death. But I’m against the death penalty in all cases

      1. sorry landzek been busy. Why am I against the death penalty? I feel like I’ve gained a better understanding of my position through Zizek (because Zizek has said certain things about the death penalty in off hand remarks). For me, all these arguments about “is the death penalty a good deterrent”/ a worthy punishment miss the Real. The real of how the death penalty is actually instituted in say America is, half the time you get the wrong guy, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per execution. I also believe values-wise that its never ok to kill another person (Buddhist principle). Saying that we have to be clear that certain things in our society aren’t tolerated is an excuse to me as well, because that’s what prison is for. It just seems like an attempt to be “holier than thou” in many cases, especially conservatives, who always use it as an example of how to be “tough on crime”.
        Compassion brother- it makes me sick to think about killing anyone, even a murderer. “Hatred never ceases by hatred”- Buddha

      2. my the on the death penalty doesn’t really consider those larger things. For me, it really just comes down to 1)if someone were to rape my daughter, I would kill them, or at least want them killed (pc: put to death). From a quite philosophical perspective: I think it would be an interesting possibility, to have someones death be due to me. I don’t think I could actually kill someone in person unless I was very emotionally moved, and then it would be difficult in actuality, I think. Interesting to ponder it though.

        I dont entertain whether it is effective as a deterrent, so much; I just think there should be less people. lol. People who do blatant violence should be removed. Lesser crimes, like drug use or dealing offenses should be sentenced to treatment, with stipulations. harder crimes the people should just be removed.

        If there is repercussions, for me or society, now or in some afterlife or karmic samadhi turn, then we will deal will them when they come, just like we do with everything else.

        Could you elaborate more on the relationship of life such that killing another person is not ok?

        I do not live ‘unethically’, but strangely enough, my views are not very ‘ethical’ lol

      3. Once again, I seem to be not very timely in getting back to these comments. Time flies, hope you respond to the message. I’m done with my political conference so hopefully I’ll be better at it.

        So with the death penalty thing, to be honest I get where you are coming from. I see your point with the idea that these people don’t really have a right to be here anymore, they are just a waste of space. But the problem is when you put the right to kill in the hands of the State. I think if you allow the death penalty, thats one of the ways governments can abuse power. That’s the political argument, it doesnt matter if they are socialist and humane in other ways, thats a way toward totalitarianism.

        In terms of my ethical stance, I think allowing a society to perpetrate violence creates negative consequences that reverberate throughout society in unseen ways. Negative psychological effects. I see the death penalty essentially as an injustice if you have an alternative. I’m not for the “eye for an eye” mentality, I’m not for that Old Testament stuff. I like the Jesus/Buddha approach

      4. Ah! Politics. No prob on fast response, btw. Sometimes extended delays and unexpected replies are actually nice.

        I can agree with your analysis reason. I suppose (without to much thought about it) that I (perhaps naively) think that there are ‘universal’ crimes that no one would dispute:: rape and murder. So I figure if we could keep our ideals of democratic process in check, in place, then we could manage killing such found guilty people without fear of the system getting out of whack. I often think the main issue that prevents institutional sanctioned murder is the ideal that we are being presumptuous as to their potential to contribute back to society. I have no idealist leanings for potential in those cases. But perhaps I am revealing my idealist tendencies by that. Lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s