Thus Spake Zarathustra.

True.

Question, can we talk about this? I can see you're upset. Question, I'd really like to talk about

this.

Omnibenevolence is a feature of the Abrahamic divinity. Combine that with omnipotence and you have a problem of evil.

But gods roamed the landscape of the human psyche long before Abraham. Many of them were assholes.

I'm familiar with rightism, yes. But interestingly, the central columns of rightism are not identified in the American Bill of Rights. There was no need to.

We identify rights when there's a need. I think the 1st Amendment was responding to a situation that doesn't really exist now. If Vagabond is right, that we should recall the value of free speech, I think that means we need to focus on what we're looking to address. Is it a looming Leftist Threat? Obviously not.

Hmm. Not really what I had in mind. Maybe the software doesn't allow that much freedom? If so.. that's kind of wonky isn't it?

So do you think Fascists, Communists, The Left or The Right, Anarchists can tolerate ideologically free speech or don't these groups make the presupposition (Example: Milo's being turned down by Berkeley's due to Marxist or/& Anarchist protesters or Milo being turned down by CPAC ostensibly for moral reasons) that their followers & perhaps by implication that the pubic will be hurt in some manner by any such speech. The assumption that the masses are too immature to handle certain ideological sophistry, that the masses are unable to think as adults. — Cavacava

Do you think the masses are able to think as adults? I think history shows that widespread emotional maturity just... doesn't happen. Embracing democracy means embracing the occasional Oh Shit.

But isn't freedom of speech really more about the press? I mean.. originally? I'm thinking it's in the First Amendment because British troops confiscated printing equipment that had been used to complain about the British military.

No, because no one would have anything to say. — Cavacava

Hmm... LOL.

Evil, by definition, is never justifiable.

Blogs?

What would you say the justification(s) for the right to free speech is(are)?

Evil does not necessitate the nonexistence of god. — TheMadFool

That is correct.

Dave? What are you doing, Dave?

Maybe the values of free-speech simply need to be re-learned in a new and increasingly connected world who for whatever reason was not able to digitally export them off the bat. — VagabondSpectre

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.. if there was some governmental means by which all speech could be forced to be truthful, would we still need free speech? I've been pondering the origin of the emphasis on free speech, on the evolution of government, how a governmental form gives way to a different form...

Cool! If you had an opportunity to ask a living philosopher something... what do you think it would be and to whom?

Yet nothing physically infinite happens, and what motion is possible is determined by the laws of physics alone, and not by the necessary truths about an abstraction that bears the same name.

Common sense dictates that Zeno's mistake was to PRESUME that a certain mathematical notion called "infinity" is physically relevant. — tom

Zeno's intentions aside, you aren't solving the paradox by saying this. You're merely restating it. Infinite regresses appear from time to time. Philosophers usually take them as a sign that something's wrong. Consider Frege's and Quine's reactions to the regresses they discovered. No one says, "Oh that's just a fluke of the mind... I'll proceed on as if I never noticed that."

No. We pay attention to regresses because philosophy is the domain where we're free to take note of such impractical doo-dads.

If you're planning a trip to the Grand Canyon, feel free to ignore Zeno's Paradox. It has nothing to do with your trip. And by the way, why are you going this time of year? Don't you know the road to the North Rim is probably closed?

But we've already solved the paradox: it is merely a confusion between an abstract attribute and a physical attribute of the same name. — tom

I don't think so. It's just a simple question: does the golfball have to arrive at the center point before it can make it to its destination? Common sense says yes. Infinite regress appears.

Note that the regress is headed back to the starting point, not the destination.

I think the point of counting is to quantify. Every step of the way in counting one has quantified the stuff up to that point (so it's weird to think of counting numbers. What?)

Anyway, there need be no counting in Zeno's Paradox. If you say the golf ball must arrive at the center point in order to make it to the hole, you just bought the whole enchilada.

What would you like to see more of on this forum, Jute?

Damn right.

But is he doing so with any degree of seriousness? If not, this should not be posted in the philosophy of religion section.

Challenging anti-Ariellean sentiments, pending refutation.
Goes way back, to 1078 I think, hence why I posted it in this group.
Take it with a smile. ;) Or not. — jorndoe

I would take it with a smile if I got the joke. I don't even know who you're shooting at.

Drive by philosophy?

Would the smell of peanuts, the taste of coffee, and the feeling of freshly laundered cloths all be green too? Is justice green? — Wosret

Just things people can see.

Imagine that everything in the universe is green. Would we have the word "green?"

Positivity doesn't exist unless it's in the company of negativity. So if we're just dealing with 2 dimensions, left and right are negatives of one another. It's more complicated if we add that third dimension.

Yeah, it's all part of its meaning. They definitely form each other's meaning relationally, but the relation itself is abstract, and applicable to many things with zero physical, or structural similarities themselves. Is then, up down left and right just shit we made up? — Wosret

The same situation is there with me and not-me. Us and not-us. Shit and not-shit.

What I'm interesting in is showing that Zeno's paradox proves continuous motion to be illogical, and that any attempt to save continuous motion from Zeno's paradox by referring to being able to calculate the sum of a geometric series misses the point. — Michael

I'm not sure there's a way to show that. A person either understands the paradox or not. It's not complicated.

Magnetically speaking, they could switch, but magnetic positive is pretty crispy.

And yet what does "south" ultimately mean? Aren't the other directions part of it's meaning?

To properly explain hemispheres, do we need to say whether northern or southern is primary? Because it's obviously the northern.

The concept of universal has the idea of particular built in to it. And vice versa. That's the middle ground I think.

Yep. The problem of evil is known as the Atheist Argument. Have you checked out Leibniz's solution?

What do you find appealing about it?

That's probably what he had in mind. — Sapientia

Or maybe he doesn't mean that... I think he was saying we shouldn't rely on our own understanding (or logic). Some would say logic puts us in contact with the Divine Mind. He's saying it's still not enough to see the truth.

Anyway, what if people worshiped a god who was supposed to be omni-malevolent? So they would have the problem of good, but the apologist might say that the appearance of good is mistaken. All good things are just the prelude to a greater Evil. :)

Why would it mean that? If it's a mystery, then wouldn't that just mean that that's possible, but we don't know? — Sapientia

If the Lord moves in mysterious ways is presented for consideration as a solution to the problem of evil, I would assume that what's meant is that an evil action is a stepping stone to some greater good.

The way that would work out in practice is that some mother whose child was murdered by a policemen might be told that her grief is inappropriate because unbeknownst to her, it's all working out for the best. So that would solve the problem of evil because it would mean there is no such thing as evil.

So maybe the evil is required for some greater good? — Mongrel

Yes, may be. — TheMadFool

So you're giving up omnibenevolence because (as I think BC mentioned) evil is evil. I think I understand where you're coming from, it's just psychologically precarious to say "This evil is for a greater good" because that can feed a longing to rationalize your own evil actions. I think Wosret made that same point. I'm just chiming in.

Yes but I don't know whether this has a divine purpose or not. — TheMadFool

So maybe the evil is required for some greater good?

Do you believe evil has ever been commited?

The problem of evil is that God is supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Saying God moves in mysterious ways solves the problem of evil if it means there is no evil.

I really do agree with you that Trump is a buffoon. I don't see him as any more or less dangerous than any other candidate for President though. From my perspective, it's all entertaining theater. At the end of 4 years, I'll stand up, brush the popcorn off my lap, and go watch the next show. — Hanover

I agree with that. The fact that he named his inauguration day a national day of patriotism kind of makes me feel like I slipped into an alternate reality, but I don't think the US is about to turn into Nazi Germany. Not that I don't think it could.. of course it could.

My understanding was that Obama-care was a first step in dealing with the fact that Medicare funding is inadequate, so it was forced by circumstances, not socialist principles.

And yes, people were saying Obama was the Antichrist. Here's the difference: at the time, I would have assumed that a rational person would realize that Obama isn't really the Antichrist. And now I would assume that a rational person would understand why, for instance, women object to Trump.

Throw me a bone, here, Hanover. You're a fairly rational person.

Cool!