• On perennialism
    But as I told you in the other thread, killing in self-defense is not murder. It's manslaughter. — Thorongil
    I don't make a difference between the two of them. That's another reification right there in my opinion. It's the same underlying action, you're just using two different words to differentiate based on CONTEXT not on the action.
  • On perennialism
    I'm glad you were not liquidated — Janus
    yet* :P >:O

    I think this site would certainly be much the poorer without you.:) — Janus
    Thank you, those are very kind words for you to say! I have also found the discussions with you very interesting and insightful as well! :)

    .:) — Janus
    Have you become possessed by the banned spirit of Thanatos Sand with the ".:)" ? >:)

    Nations spending obscene amounts of money arming themselves, though, is done often in unreasonable (to say the least) anticipation of threats from other nations. The churches don't speak out against this egregious and gratuitous paranoia. It is the general atmosphere of distrust that is problematic for (relative, I don't think perfect is possible of course) peace and harmony on Earth. That is why Christ told people "Love thy neighbour as thyself". I doubt he expected perfection on Earth, any more than I do. — Janus
    But then I think I would do that as well if I was in charge of a country. I'd want my country preferably and ideally to be well armed and prepared in case of war. I mean don't you think it would be irresponsible for a leader not to prepare his country, and then have to face the possibility of someone like Kim Jong Un force his country into slavery? If you were that leader, wouldn't you feel that you have to take the measures necessary to protect your people, and in fact, that it is your responsibility to do so? I think a leader should feel bad if he places his country in peril's way, because the livelihood of many people depend on him.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    "Only a moron would think that!!!" — Srap Tasmaner
    Unfortunately such replies seem to be quite common here many times.

    My point has only been that we should be mindful of not only the philosophical import of our words, but their effect on the health of the forum. It's a matter of faith, perhaps, that the latter would also lead in the long run to better philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner
    I agree.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    Just to be clear, you would also say that, "Nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism," right? — Buxtebuddha
    I think the line of the left is that since sexism is used against women (or at least used to be used against women) more frequently than against men it would be an equivocation to say "nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism". Not that I agree with their position, but that's what I think people on the left generally think.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    I should add that I once received a murder-threat, from a "moderator" at a Spiritual forum. Of course there were no consequences to the perp. — Michael Ossipoff
    :-O You should've threatened to put the cops on him. Then he may have turned from that big loud-mouthed dirty boy into a whimpering coward, like in this very recent example >:O

    "Less inclined to speak" — Srap Tasmaner
    That's not the same as silenced. It's their choice not to speak anymore if that is the case, no?
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    silence others — Srap Tasmaner
    I don't understand how someone can be "silenced". It's an online forum! How do you "silence" someone? I suppose by banning them perhaps. Otherwise they only remain silent if they want to remain silent.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    Bye. — Mongrel

    To those people who are still insisting, some via PM that I have something personal against Mongrel, let me clarify one last time that I have no ill feelings towards Mongrel and even feel sorry that she has decided to not take part in the forums anymore, but I do respect her decision.

    I have a long history with Mongrel on these forums, and for most of that history our interaction has quite frankly been good and enjoyable. Mongrel is a person who can be quite witty, and enjoyable to talk to in a casual manner. If I met her, I think I'd actually get along with her very well to tell you the truth (she's different than some other people here who I actually don't think I'd get along with very well at all).

    I remember even today the many times she has playfully mocked me with regards to Mongolia and straw dogs, the entire "Bilo" thing, the three word poems, and so on so forth. Maybe these don't ring a bell to many people, but Mongrel sure remembers them, and I remember them as very funny and positive interactions.

    In addition, I should also mention that I've heard around that Mongrel works or worked in healthcare taking care of ill and dying people, something that I think takes a lot of courage to do and is extremely admirable, and quite frankly something that I myself probably wouldn't be capable of doing. So I have a lot of respect for Mongrel as a person.

    As Baden has said, I don't have any right to tell any woman how they should feel about sexism, which statements they should find sexist or not, and so forth. And in that regard, it is excellent that Mongrel wanted to talk about sexism openly, although it is lamentable the way she has chosen to do it, and quite frankly not very productive.

    It is true that in my opinion Mongrel is an extremist when it comes to issues of sex, religion, and the like. This makes her become resentful and even though she's fighting for something good, she ends up causing a lot of harm unwillingly. Over the last months I haven't engaged with her at all pretty much, but she would come from time to time, just to say something mean in response so something I had said. It appears to me she gets very easily offended around those topics and isn't capable (or willing) to consider or accept hearing different views and opinions. This is unfortunate since this is a philosophy forum after all, and it is unavoidable that there will be people here holding a multitude of views, and it wouldn't be fair to expel those people simply because their views are not acceptable to one (or a few) persons.

    I do not know nor understand why Mongrel takes such an extremist approach to these issues, but then I cannot know what kind of men she had to deal with through her life or what she went through and it's not my business either.

    Frankly I'm disappointed to see that Mongrel has decided to slander me and viciously and cruelly state some very violent and untrue things about me in the forums. But I do understand she may have felt offended by things I've said, even though they were not intended in the way she interpreted them, and I have apologised to her for it. I truly am sorry, but I cannot accept that those things were as she interpreted them to be, since that's just false.

    Nevertheless I have forgiven Mongrel despite the unfair treatment she has given me, and I wish her all the best, and hope that she can find a place where she will feel better. I think we're all willing to welcome her back if she ever wants to return, she's been with us for a long time, and I think she's been a great person for the most part. I also think sometimes we should discuss issues of sexism fairly and openly, without condemnation and hatred, and it's good she attempted to bring the topic up. So I'm not happy to see her go, but it's her decision and she knows better what the good thing for her is! Anyway, goodbye Mongrel, and all the best!
  • On perennialism
    If you accept Jesus' proscription against violent resistance to evil, then it is not justified even in the case of self-defence. There really is no hope for humanity if everyone just keeps arming themselves against their neighbours. Someone has to be courageous and take the risk of vulnerability in order to stop the rot. How much is spent on armaments and defence systems today that could be spent on schools, hospitals, feeding the poor? I would say there is always another alternative, but hardly ever anyone courageous enough to take it. Tolstoy is good on this interpretation of Christianity; see his The Kingdom of God is Within You. — Janus
    My apologies Janus for the very delayed response. I do appreciate your comments and our discussions, so please don't take this as disrespect towards you and your comments in any way. It's absolutely not meant in that manner. I've been meaning to respond, but unfortunately I had to deal with a situation wherein the Three Stooges tried once again to *liquidate* me since I was becoming too dangerous - but luckily I survived one more time >:O

    I do hold that murder even in self-defence is ultimately wrong, but a "necessary" wrong if I may say so - or at least an excusable one. However, even if a courageous one - or many - take the risk of vulnerability, it will not stop the rot. They will inspire a few people here and there, and their name may get recorded in the history books as praise by those who will never be courageous.

    Nothing can stop the rot, it's part and parcel of this world it seems. It can be limited, but never exterminated. I don't remember if I ever looked at Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, but I have read his Gospel in Brief for sure which has a similar message to what you've mentioned here.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    ↪Sapientia
    It seems that some moderators are indeed wise...
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    I wish you would be a little more considerate, but I do not want you banned. — unenlightened
    So tell me unenlightened, if there is an extremist around who cannot bear to have conversation with those who disagrees with them, and actually - through the statements they make - show that they have an utterly false view of the world, should we peddle to their insecurities? If so, why? If they want to leave, that is fine - nobody can keep them here by force if they don't want to. But this is a philosophy forum where you have to meet with and discuss RESPECTFULLY with people who are different from you. I have shown that I am interested to and open to discuss with such members. But I don't appreciate when they spread false information about me, when they are persistently judgemental, and show no willingness to frankly talk and work together on issues. I've earned the respect of the people that I have earned it precisely by being open to rational conversation and listening to their views respectfully, even when I disagree. And I disagree with most people here more often than not.

    But take someone like Bitter Crankus. I highly respect BC and if I was the owner of this forum, quite honestly BC would be a moderator. And yet I disagree with him on most everything.

    Heister Eggcart is also someone I very frequently disagree with, but I've learned a lot from interacting with him on the forum, and have found his presence valuable. I don't think we've ever "fought together" with ill feelings, or hatred towards one another.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    ↪unenlightened
    Excuse me unenlightened, we all know that this isn't the first time you've tried to pull off a shameful public stunt to get rid of me. Who do you think believes you now? Probably even you yourself have stopped believing in it. — Agustino
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    One of the moderators told me he was getting complaints about me from member X. I concluded that I should, could, and would leave member X alone. Ignore, not comment on, not annoy further. — Bitter Crank
    Well yeah, clearly from that member that told you to fuck off. That member is literarily quite deluded, and has proven to be someone who lives in their own hateful world, totally unaware of what exists around them. And this isn't even the first time!

    And I've treated this member very nicely. I've conceded a lot of ground that some people have suggested that I shouldn't have conceded. I said that I apologise if any of my remarks offended the said member even though the said member had no real reason to feel offended. However, the said member hasn't returned the cordiality or ever attempted to excuse themselves for making completely outrageous claims. This is the kind of person who literarily thinks - listen to this please - that everyone else thinks I'm a sexist. This is the kind of person who thinks I want to take away women's voting rights! Literarily! This kind of person thinks if I had power, I'd force them to live at the periphery of society or something :s And it seems that this person actually believes these things about me! This person ain't saying them merely for rhetorical effect.

    Now let me show you what I actually sent to another member by PM in a private discussion. So that you will see how utterly nasty I am:

    So what's dangerous about it? I think the Church should welcome homosexual people, and I do think homosexual people have gifts and qualities that are valuable too. We should certainly treat homosexuals with kindness and respect, so long as they're not of the violent leftist kind. — Agustino

    It actually turns out that I'm the opposite of the kind of person this deluded individual is trying to portray me to be. And everyone who knows me knows that this is true. I respect and love women, I have women friends, and I have absolute respect for them. How anyone could say that a rhetorical remark I made about "women on TV" as an example of our lust and wrong values in society counts as sexism is utterly beyond me. How anyone could think of me as a racist, homophobe, etc. is also beyond me.

    And now because this person is threatening to leave or I don't know what they're threatening if the house isn't arranged as they like it, I don't think any of us should feel bad about it. They should be willing to look at things from the perspective of others, and be apologetic where they deserve to be apologetic. Concessions and cordiality cannot come just from one side.

    I don't think that is a good policy, for two reasons. 1. It can't be done; some people are more tolerant of abuse than others. Typically it is a learned male trait to 'take it like a man', so it disadvantages half the population at a stroke. 2. Kevin is contagious: call me a dick and I'll likely call you one back, and when people who like to call other people dicks find that they can call people dicks, you end up with threads full of dicks calling dicks dicks. — unenlightened
    Excuse me unenlightened, we all know that this isn't the first time you've tried to pull off a shameful public stunt to get rid of me. Who do you think believes you now? Probably even you yourself have stopped believing in it.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin


    I can sympathise with the trouble of the moderators. They have been put in an impossible situation. If they ban Kevin it will be a disaster. If they don't ban Kevin, it will be an equally big disaster.

    So they have chosen the wisest move, undertaken by the wisest among them, who of course claims to lack wisdom (how else could he be the wisest?).

    To step down, because stepping down should be taken as a major action - a way to attract attention and to portray oneself as a martyr. This is required to create a fictional character who "everybody wants to see banned", for if we were to deal with the reality, it would be an entirely different story. But at least in fiction it is possible to consider whatsoever we want, for if anyone will accuse us, we will pretend it's not who we're talking about!

    Of course, the claim being that if we discussed without any mask, there would be big fights, and naturally! For the truth is quite the contrary to the fiction - not everyone wants to see Kevin banned. For if the name of Kevin was Thanatos Sand or John Harris, he would've already been banned. In fact, that's why Harris is no longer around @Noble Dust. But that is not the name...

    First this fiction of a common interest is necessary. Otherwise, how to get rid of Kevin? He has shown that he is in fact very dangerous. That is why it is now necessary to get rid of him. All his life on the forum he has fought against oppression, against the imposition of our views and for openness and justice. He has fought for the minority - at the time, he was fighting alone. But now, many have joined him! In fact, he was just about to change the guidelines or cause us to lose all authority and respect for not obeying the will of the community. That's why we had to close the vote by force. We had to put an end to the thread. It was absolutely necessary. It had to be locked.

    Harris wasn't an enemy. He was a great tool to us. If it weren't for the intervention of people like him, we could never have closed it. Through his sacrifice (we did have to ban him), he has provided the necessary path for escape. For this voting is truly a scary thing. Today it is the guidelines, tomorrow it will be the moderators - and soon we will lose all control. Who knows who will become moderator, and what they will ask to do?! We will no longer be able to impose our own policies, made in the image of our own will - we will have to accept the will of the community, or else have no legitimacy. Do you want us to become like old PF?! Everyone will move away! It will be just us putting out rules that we ourselves follow and no one else!

    But my God! How can we get rid of Kevin? He has asked us publicly to delete all his posts and remove any trace of him if we ban him! Can you imagine? Removing his thousands of posts, not to mention all the replies addressed to him and all the people who have quoted him? My God - half of our forum and reputation we have built with the search engines! Not to mention the work required! And we cannot deny him even this right, poor person, we ban him without reason, and not even his last wish we don't grant?

    And not to mention that if we get rid of him, the people who appreciate him are still around. My God! What will they do? Either they will leave, never to come back! Can you imagine? We will lose so many members... not to mention that if they were to remain, they will cause even more problems. At least now, it is a little bit controlled, but if we give them this reason, what will they do?

    At least, let us try to keep the members, and keep them civilised. First we have to create a fiction, this is the only way. The wisest amongst us knows we cannot talk openly about it. First it is required to create a false consensus and deceive the people... We must invent the reason - that imaginary ghosts are being driven away, in fact, so many of them, that they outnumber the people who remain! As it even says - who knows how many? We can pick whatever number it fits!

    And my God! If we don't get rid of him, how shall we sleep? For he has already earned the respect of some of our members, and he is day by day winning the respect of more and more. And his ideas are very radical - we have to get rid of him! Soon the voting will not be about guidelines anymore - we'll be asked to vote on our own chairs - I mean can you imagine? To live in a community where we're not here by divine fiat, but we're actually here because we represent our members, and they want to be moderated by us? That is a horrible thought! To be at the mercy of the electorate! How low have we fallen?

    Now we're all trembling around the ban button, not knowing what to do... To press or not to press? And who will take responsibility?! There is a crazy one amongst us, but we cannot let him press, regardless of how willing he is. For it will be truly disastrous! He does not understand our great difficulty... He is like a bull ready to jump over the cliff.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    ↪Beebert
    Okay I see what you mean! As I said I'm fine to just forgive her, I don't care much about it, but this shouldn't happen in the future.

    Don't forget to vote on the poll on the first page, even though you've already voiced your opinion here, but it may be easier for the moderators to see all the data summed up there!
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    I've added a poll about it as well, please vote.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    Please everyone who posts in this thread:

    For those interested in this thread please ignore John Harris and post your thoughts about whether or not you think slander guidelines should be introduced for the future. Thanks! — Agustino
    This is important because this member has 6 times in a row refused to discuss the topic of the thread, and it's important. Don't derail the thread. You can start your own if you want to discuss surrounding issues.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. — Beebert
    To explain why I was motivated to bring up a petition to introduce guidelines against slander. The topic isn't about whether you agree that Mongrel slandered me or not, since that's irrelevant to whether you think we should have slander guidelines. Is that now more clear hopefully? The only reason why I had to give examples, not only Mongrel but also TimeLine is because this is a repeated thing, and it can get very ugly. So that makes me think we need slander guidelines.

    Anyway, yes; I think slander guidlines would be fitting. — Beebert
    Thank you, if possible let's focus on discussing slander guidelines. Even for people who disagree that Mongrel slandered me, because deciding that is not the point of this thread.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    For those interested in this thread please ignore John Harris and post your thoughts about whether or not you think slander guidelines should be introduced for the future. Thanks!
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    Sorry, until you take down what you said about Mongrel, it still is about her. So, take down what you said about her and I will stop talking about her. — John Harris
    It's now quite clear that you will belligerently ignore the topic of the thread. Fine.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    You can decide the topic of the thread, but you can't stop people from addressing what you yourself brought up, and you brought up Mongrel and accused her of slander. Sorry, you opened that door yourself. — John Harris
    This isn't a place to discuss Mongrel. If you want to discuss that, open your own thread please. This is the fifth time.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below: — John Harris
    Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel. This is the fourth time. If you will not accept it, I can almost guarantee you that you will be punished (because it happened to me once). So please take note of this. You MUST respect the topic of the thread. As the OP, I decide what the topic is. You misunderstood my first post, the topic isn't Mongrel, it's slander guidelines. It says it very clearly actually:

    PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE SEXISM THREAD WAS LOCKED BY THE MODERATORS THIS THREAD WILL NOT BE USED AS A PLACE TO DISCUSS SEXISM. Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines. — Agustino
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    ↪John Harris
    Okay, I clarify once again - for the THIRD time - that this isn't about Mongrel. Please accept it.

    Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't. — John Harris
    As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    ↪John Harris
    This thread isn't for accusing Mongrel, sorry. It's for discussing the introduction of slander guidelines. I will warn you that if you don't respect the OP you risk getting a warning from the moderators. This is the second time that I, as the starter of the OP, have to ask you this. Please take note. If you wish to discuss Mongrel, sexism, etc. start your own thread.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    Mongrel's statements were very legitimate presumptions, not slanderous at all. — John Harris
    Were they true statements? I want you to show me my sexist statements which show that:

    He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so — Mongrel

    Please. Where have I suggested women should lose the right to vote in many countries of the world? Where do my sexist comments suggest that this is what I intend?

    Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him. — John Harris
    I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point. This thread isn't for discussing this. If you can't discuss slander guidelines without discussing sexism, then out you go, you have no business in this thread.
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist. — John Harris
    First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.

    Second of all, even if they were sexist, these statements are disgusting, slandarous and absolutely false:
    He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. — Mongrel
    If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. — Mongrel
  • ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
    What is the point with this? — Beebert

    introduction of slander guidelines. — Agustino
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    So your God isn't really Goodness (except by analogy??)? — Michael Ossipoff
    No, not in-so-far as Goodness (being a concept) is a limitation.
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    In an earlier post, you agreed that God is Goodness. — Michael Ossipoff
    Reference? And I would agree that he's Goodness, but only in the analogical, not categorical way. Ultimately he is beyond that.
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    Those two traditions are not alone in Holding this view. — Beebert
    Show me proof of the fact other traditions consider God to be hidden. Do Buddhists consider God to be hidden? Well yeah, so hidden they don't even talk about him. Do Hindus consider God to be hidden? Where?

    And it has nothing to do with what Nietzsche REALLY said in the quote. — Beebert
    It does, because N. was strawmanning. He didn't understand why Pascal was talking about the Hidden God, and instead implied that Pascal thought this was some kind of immorality from God or whatever :s


    Btw, regarding Socrates; which Socrates are you referring to when you praise him? ;) The Picture of him by Plato or that by the dramatist Aristophanes? The latter presents Socrates in his play 'The Clouds' as a petty thief, a fraud and a sophist with a specious interest in physical speculations. However, it is still possible to recognize in him the distinctive individual defined in Plato's dialogues. — Beebert
    Plato's dialogues. Aristophanes was a brutish conservative of the status quo of that time largely, and therefore of course he saw Socrates as a corrupter of the youth.
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    I think you need to study Augustine in his understanding of this more thoroughly. There are many things I find problematic in Augustine's writings, but this is NOT one of them. — Beebert
    I've read quite a bit of Augustine, which passages are you referring to and which works?

    A complete misunderstanding of what Augustine was saying. — Beebert
    I don't claim he said this, I only claim that this would follow.

    Btw I have written like 3 other posts directed to you... I would appreciate if you answered them — Beebert
    Can you let me know which ones in particular you'd want me to answer? There's a lot of things I have to answer here and not enough time. Because of the sexism thing I'm behind with a lot of answers, including to others like Janus. So please let me know which ones (link me to them).

    Also, God isnt 100 percent incomprehensible anymore, because we have Christ, right? We know how he is because of Christ. — Beebert
    In His essence He would be.

    What I Think is my personal problem with your view on christianity, God, man etc. is that you(and this is my problem with Aquinas too) talk about man and think about man in third person, and man sounds like an "it", created as some sort of a muppet by an incomprehemsible God. — Beebert
    Why do you think I treat man like an "it" or a "muppet" (or better said a puppet)? That God is incomprehensible in His essence is true, and asserted by several mystics/saints. Lossky in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church also asserts it if I remember correctly. Now what does this have to do with man being an it or a muppet?

    Because of your view, you give the impression to me that man isnt comprehended as anything else but a finite object created by an infinite God... — Beebert
    I'd say that in my view there is a separation between created things, and the uncreated God. Man goes amongst the created things, but is, through Jesus Christ divinised such that in the afterlife (and for some rare few in this life) theosis is possible.

    As for Aquinas, he may intellectualy have understood what Augustine understood and spoke about when he asked God what be really is, what his true Nature is, and when he wondered in a dissappointed way Why man in general wonders more about the stars than about the depth of his soul. But Aquinas didnt understand this really... — Beebert
    Why do you say that?
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    Take that, Calvin! — Wayfarer
    :-!
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    Furthermore, God is incomprehensible - therefore He can't be capricious, for capriciousness is comprehensible.
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    So morality is just morality because God randomly defined what it is, but in reality, the opposite might as well be moral? — Beebert
    What reality? If the essence of morality is God's Law, then that is reality. What you perceive as morality - at least in its untainted version - was written on your heart by God.

    If I kill someone randomly, is it immoral because I do something Christ would never do, in other words something God would never do, or is it immoral because God just says so? — Beebert
    It's immoral because you are subject to God's Law - and you were created in such a way as to be subject to it.

    I think you are confused as to what "above" actually means. He is defining what God is not, not what he is — Beebert
    Yes, He is defining what God is not:
    nor godhead nor goodness —
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    Your view regarding evil being ignorance will be addressed later.

    This is actually a very dangerous thing to believe, in my opinion - because if this is so, 'God' is also above any form of predication - we can't even say that God is 'good' or 'just', because, according to this, God's ideas of 'goodness' and 'justice' could be utterly capricious; He might decided that what we think is evil, is good, just because He can. — Wayfarer
    Yes, God is above any form of predication - exactly! Have you been reading the theologians lately? You've opened up Lossky once again, or Dionysius? That is my exact point! He is above goodness, above Justice, etc.

    Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty. — Dionysius

    That it that is the pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly perceived is not itself any of those things.

    Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.
    God's ideas of 'goodness' and 'justice' could be utterly capricious; He might decided that what we think is evil, is good, just because He can. — Wayfarer
    But your judgement of God is pathetic otherwise. You pretend that God is some sort of man, and if there is no Law to govern his behaviour, then He will "misbehave" :s You have still not given up on the idol of your own self which you project unto your imagination of God.

    Poppycock. This is to say that evil is not evil. — Thorongil
    No, it's actually not. For someone to be evil, they have to break the moral Law. God cannot break the moral Law as He is not its subject. Therefore God cannot be evil.

    This returns us to your original argument, which I only granted for the sake of argument. I suppose the response to your question would be that you are mistaken to speak of evil as existing. That is to say, if you grant that evil is the privation of the good, and it is the case that the good alone exists (God), then evil does not exist. God cannot by definition be present where nothing exists, so the contradiction you thought resulted doesn't actually do so. — Thorongil
    This is precisely the reification that I've condemned. I know St. Augustine and the later Saints supported this view, but I think it's absolutely wrong. Does this privation of the good exist? You will now say yes. So apparently, something - the free will of man - can displace God, so that God ceases to exist where the privation of good exists right? So His omnipresence was a joke. That's absurd. And if you'll claim that evil is nothing, then you're even worse than you claim that I am by asserting that God is beyond the Law since you do not take evil seriously.

    But as I said, the doctrine also entails that God is goodness, however analogical this claim may be. To enact a complete divorce between goodness and God is not something I've ever seen a traditional Christian theist do. — Thorongil
    Wrong doctrine. Or better said, doctrine at a superficial level. Divine simplicity entails first and foremost that God is beyond the things created and nameable.

    I've ever seen a traditional Christian theist do. — Thorongil
    Right, so you've never read Dionysius? You've never read Isaiah? You've never read Christian mystics? :s

    I'm still uncomfortable with this, as it seems to imply a kind of moral relativism, which would suggest, for example, that there are instances when murder is right. — Thorongil
    For you? No. (although yes, there are instances when murder is not wrong - or better said excusable. If you attack me with a knife for example, and I end up killing you, that is morally excusable).

    But for God to command murder at one time and condemn it at another offends our moral sensibilities. — Thorongil
    Okay, so what? God is servant to your moral sensibilities? :s

    Murder is intrinsically wrong, no matter the circumstances, which means that its being wrong cannot change. — Thorongil
    For the most part yes.

    Not univocally, no. — Thorongil
    Please expand on this.

    Right, so my analogy isn't fallacious. — Thorongil
    It is fallacious when you're overextending it, as you are.

    I say that God cannot break the law, because the object of the law is the good, so to break it would be to violate his own nature as goodness itself. — Thorongil
    God doesn't have a definable nature in His essence. Divine incomprehensibility IS His nature.

    I admittedly threw you a slightly off-topic bone here, but this is an interesting response. You don't have to respond in this thread, but what exactly is your view on procreation? I might have mistakenly believed you were an anti-natalist at one point. — Thorongil
    I think procreation is not immoral. Whether it should be preferable to never procreating is a question for the individual. Some are called to be completely devoted to God. Others are not.

    I was never an anti-natalist.
  • Evil = Absence of Good => A Grave Error?
    And when God intervenes in nature and does something we judge, by the moral law he gave us, to be evil, then what? — Thorongil
    If God causes the event directly, then it would be beyond good and evil.

    A straw man. It's not lifted above, but made to be identical with God himself. God is not merely good, he is goodness itself. — Thorongil
    Hmm okay, so then where does evil come from? Evil exists eternally like some kind of absence?

    Do you reject the doctrine of divine simplicity? — Thorongil
    No. God's transcendence would imply that doctrine.

    I still don't get the relevance. Are you saying that the repugnant things are suddenly no longer repugnant once sin goes away? Ugly and evil things just disappear? That would be an interesting claim to the extent that it suggests you are an annihilationist. — Thorongil
    The relevance is that you would then not use the Law to judge God's actions. Using the Law to judge God is an effect of sin, or so would be my claim.

    It seems that God's "glory" is always appealed to when trying to smooth over theologically absurd or morally repellent claims. — Thorongil
    Is morality defined by God's Law? Is God the Creator of the Law? Presuming you've answered these two by yes, then it would follow that God - as Creator of the Law - cannot be judged using the Law. So how is this theologically absurd?

    I made an analogy between a father and his child. Do you reject that God is a father and that we are his children? It seems you must do so in order to say that my analogy is "fallacious." — Thorongil
    God is in many ways like a Father, but He's also different from your earthly father.

    Now you're saying that God can't break his law, after you've just beaten me over the head with the claim that God can do what he wants, because he's above and beyond the law? Tell me how you have not just contradicted yourself here. — Thorongil
    Because whatsoever God does, it wouldn't count as breaking the Law - precisely because God is above the Law, and thus not subject to it. By not being subject to the Law, there is no sense in which you could say that God would break it.

    Alright, so then anti-natalism follows. Why create more humans corrupted by the fall? You're just perpetuating the fall and its corruption indefinitely. — Thorongil
    In the sense of St. Augustine's statement, it might (although I'm not ready to go there).
  • Who do you still admire?
    I must say that, even if it might be said to some degree that a truly immoral philosopher (in this case) is someone who one more easily feels instinctively repelled by, I doubt to what the degree the argument actually endures. Shall we then extend it to institutions too? How many mistakes are too many? Once again take the Catholic Church. Shouldnt one then avoid it? Based on the immoral actions they have committed, and for which it took them sometimes up to 400 or so years to "repent" from. And your Orthodox Church too as an institution has done some wicked things. Have they repented? And if not, shall one then avoid it? — Beebert
    I don't think we can compare people with institutions. The current pope for example can't be responsible for the Inquisition.
  • Sexism
    The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show. — Agustino
    Then why are you making arguments like it is? What relevance does whether some women on TV denounces Trump's sexism, but still likes him, have to the question of harassment and assualt? Why you would suggest these women wanted to be subjected to Trump's behaviour, as in these instances where he harassed and assaulted women. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Read the paragraph again. What is the first sentence? The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them.

    The second sentence is an example of this. The women - ON TV - pretend to be disgusted at Trump (based on what he does to women). But secretly, they all desire it. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone in the booth, they place their vote on him. Etc. All of them are contrasts of public vs private life. So no, there's no question of adopting the rapist theory or whatever of that sort.

    The salient point of course is that these women in the example don't claim in private that they don't want to have sex with Trump. They only claim that in public, on TV, not behind closed doors.
  • Sexism
    ...in which case they wouldn't be hypocrites at all and your theory only has application in your wild imaginings. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    :s

    Again. The argument is that they hate Trump in public, but love him in private. Is that hypocritical? Yes. There's NOTHING - ZERO - about any kind of assault here.
  • Sexism
    I know that, but the argument supposedly reflects what women want, such that they would be hypocrites for taking issue with harassment and assualt in public life. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No, the argument neither suggests this, nor affirms this. First of all, the similarity wouldn't hold precisely because they do take issue with regards to assault in public and in private equally much. Their secret desire isn't to be assaulted.
  • Sexism
    What relevance can it have then? — TheWillowOfDarkness
    The argument isn't about women, sexism and harrassment though. It's about public vs private life of the women on TV. Read this again:

    The argument isn't about any actual act of sex, but rather about the values of the people. It's not even about the fact they're women. That is only relevant because Trump is heterosexual. If he was gay, I would've used men in the example. The example illustrates what they say on TV vs how they behave, act, think and speak behind closed doors. — Agustino
    What is the TV? The TV is a metaphor for public life. And what are their secret desires? That's how they act in private life. So in public - on camera, on TV - they say "No, we hate Trump!". And in private, they call Trump and say "Mr. Trump, we want to spend time with you!".
Home » Agustino