Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:11:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
952 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely
> not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness.
Oki, I got that bit.
> Regarding neutral... did you prove it exists?
Neither good or bad, either having no understanding of ones actions, or having
no particular alignment to either paradigm.
Thats my working definition.. disprove it.
> Regarding good and evil... Why must you have a concept of it to achieve one
> or the other?
Because if you don't know what you are doing, then you can only act in a good
way, or act in an evil way. Or act in a neutral way :)
> There is no neutral. I have showed you why.
I'm interested in this concept, but, as you would say, you've used a mish mash
of arguments to reach this conclusion. You've lost me - if you'd like to
explain it in simpler terms I'll try and follow.
> Do you believe yourself to be good? Do you pay taxes? I rest my case.
You've lost me again I'm afraid.. why should paying taxes have any bearing on
whether one is innately good or bad?
> > > Thats what you mean by neutral - a disguised chaotic? Or veiled evil,
> > > depending on which scale. Correct?
> >
> > Nope - neutral is neutral - neither good or evil!
>
> The obvious answer. Prove it.
no
> > Evil goes out of its way to cause suffering, and as such isn't terribly
> useful.
>
> I pose this. Evil is suffering.
Angel A loves Angel B, they get married.
Angel C has loved Angel A all her afterlife, but suffers anyway.
Where is the evil?
I suppose they could all work out a compromise.. and then none of them would
suffer, but I predict that many people would consider that MORE evil. >:)
> > > > Just a thought!
> > >
> > > Yeah, it wasn't an idea.
> >
> > Any reason for that comment my fiend?
>
> You don't seem to have any? You have nothing original?
Thanks for the insight, I'll try and keep it in my enfeebled mind.
> > > It is only good, only life affirming, when it is born.
> >
> > This is a technicality that I have a problem with - how can it be good when
> > it has no concept of good or evil?
>
> It IS good. It doesn't need to know it. It has not decided to be good,
> it was born that way. It was born with instincts, which are wholly life
> affirming, thus good. At that point, thats all it knows - its instincts.
> It only later learns evil. If it is not surrounded by evil, it would have a
> better chance of not becoming evil. Unfortunately, it surrounds
> pervasively. Do you still have the problem?
No, I'm beginning to suspect the reverse.
> > So you can be completely for this 'life-affirming' idea, or completely and
> > utterly against it... but if you're undecided (me) then I'm already
> > life-affirming?
>
> You are already not life affirming, duh. Actually, I can't tell. I
> don't know you.
Thanks - glad to have established that, and now MAYBE we cut out all the
personal comment cr... stuff?
> > example to try and explain how someone who followed laws was not
> > neccessarily 'good'.
>
> Well, no kidding. When did you discover that? Didn't I tell you that?
Yes, after I wrote it in fact, but who's counting eh?
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
