Without evil there'd be no good ...

[LaMont Cranston]

RuleBritannia, I totally disagree. There's a large category called dichotomies. From what I can tell, we both agree they exist. You are the one who introduced heads and tails into the discussion. Under the large umbrella that is dichotomies, there are both real and false dichotomies. Yes, this thread is specifically about good and evil, but considering the entire nature of dichotomies is, for me, completely relevant to the conversation.

I tell you what, how about explaining exactly how you go about determining how something (i.e. good and evil) is a false dichotomy. In the process of explaining that, please explain how you are able to do that with absolute certainty.

[Surendra Darathy]

RuleBritannia, I totally disagree. There's a large category called dichotomies. From what I can tell, we both agree they exist. You are the one who introduced heads and tails into the discussion.

Wrong!

Whether or not dichotomies exist is irrelivent, the only thing we're talking about is good and evil, talking about other dichotomies is non-sequitur.

You disagree that whether or not dichotomies exist is irrelevant to whether or not good/evil is a coherent dichotomy?

Good/evil is not a coherent dichotomy, and that is what all the argument against you is about. How can you show that good and evil is a coherent dichotomy as opposed to a matter of personal opinion?

[RuleBritannia]

RuleBritannia, I totally disagree. There's a large category called dichotomies. From what I can tell, we both agree they exist. You are the one who introduced heads and tails into the discussion. Under the large umbrella that is dichotomies, there are both real and false dichotomies. Yes, this thread is specifically about good and evil, but considering the entire nature of dichotomies is, for me, completely relevant to the conversation.

I tell you what, how about explaining exactly how you go about determining how something (i.e. good and evil) is a false dichotomy. In the process of explaining that, please explain how you are able to do that with absolute certainty.

For the second time, I was not the one who brought heads and tails into the discussion (even though I agree it is a dichotomy).

However, the reason good and evil is not a dichotomy. From Wikipedia:

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and
* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other.

As good and evil are subjective, an action can be considered good by one person and evil by another. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Thus they are overlapping and not a dichotomy.

[Surendra Darathy]

For the second time, I was not the one who brought heads and tails into the discussion (even though I agree it is a dichotomy).

Thereby showing that what we have here is not a rhetorical or logical issue, but one having to do with attention span.

[RuleBritannia]

For the second time, I was not the one who brought heads and tails into the discussion (even though I agree it is a dichotomy).

Thereby showing that what we have here is not a rhetorical or logical issue, but one having to do with attention span.

Yes, it's definitely a pattern.

[RuleBritannia]

RuleBritannia, I totally disagree. There's a large category called dichotomies. From what I can tell, we both agree they exist. You are the one who introduced heads and tails into the discussion. Under the large umbrella that is dichotomies, there are both real and false dichotomies. Yes, this thread is specifically about good and evil, but considering the entire nature of dichotomies is, for me, completely relevant to the conversation.

I tell you what, how about explaining exactly how you go about determining how something (i.e. good and evil) is a false dichotomy. In the process of explaining that, please explain how you are able to do that with absolute certainty.

For the second time, I was not the one who brought heads and tails into the discussion (even though I agree it is a dichotomy).

However, the reason good and evil is not a dichotomy. From Wikipedia:

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and
* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other.

As good and evil are subjective, an action can be considered good by one person and evil by another. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Thus they are overlapping and not a dichotomy.

To add to this we can also bring in cognitive dissonance, where a single person can hold two contradicting beliefs e.g. believing it's wrong to kill animals but still want to eat meat. Someone could also believe it is both good and evil to murder, depending on the situation.

[LaMont Cranston]

RuleBritannia, Yes, let's bring cognitive dissonance out onto the playing field. Look, we are large-brained beings who are capable of taking in information and perceptions and making decisions about a multiplicity of things. That's how we go through life. One of the problems that you and many others seem to have is dealing with the subjective parts of life...or acting as if you have some special take on what you think is objective reality. More than that, some of you seem to have the idea that subjective experiences are less valid, real or true than what you'd like to believe is objective reality.

Let's consider an example. I'm sitting on a chair right now. The chair, the floor it's sitting on and my ass all appear to be solid. What's also true...if we can believe science...is that all of those things are made of tiny particles with mostly space in between. Is the chair, the floor and my ass solid or is it tiny particles and space? I'd say it's both, and there's no conflict between holding both ideas at the same time. We do not have to make "either/or" decisions about these things. We live with them and accept them as both being true.

Subjective and objective both exist. Hey, maybe they're a dichotomy.

What we're considering is how we actually experience our lives, but subjectively and objectively. We make value judgements and choices based on the best information we have at the time. It's not like these judgements are black and white; they're more like a mixed bag, and they are gradient. If we decide something is good in our lives, it also brings into being the concept of better and best. If we decide something is bad in our lives, it also brings into being the concept of worse and worst.

Dude, you don't live in an objective world. You live in a world that is both subjective and objective, and, so far, you have not been able to tell me how you differentiate between the two. I doubt that you can do it with absolute certainty. If we start getting into probabilities, I'll point out to you that probability is not certainty, so let's not even go there. Despite your handy-dandy little Wikipedia definition...and is Wikipedia right or the last word on everything?...these parts of our lives do overlap.

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, My goodness, we've actuallly gone from wibble, woo and spoon-bending to the problem being attention spans. Yeah, that must be it...

[LaMont Cranston]

RuleBritannia, In my research, I've done a lot of studying of different forms of woo, and I'm quite fluent in the language of woo. If you'll look up cognitive dissonance in that great authority on everything, the Wikipedia, you'll see that cognitive dissonance is a theory, and it seems like it has been embraced by certain people who want to sell a certain set of arguments.

Is there something that says we must all agree on a certain viewpoint, or, as large brained beings, are we able to consider many ideas, concepts, viewpoints, etc?
I tend to think that the way that most people use cognitive dissonance to support an argument is in the finest traditions of woo. One person's cognitive dissonance is another person's unwillingness to open up their capacity to consider more ideas than they presently have. It reflects narrow, rigid and, usually, irrational thinking.

By the way, I eat a certain amount of meat, and I don't feel good about killing animals. That's the way it is, these days, in most countries that are idustrialized and with most people I know. How about you? Do you have that be a source of conflict in your life, or do you live with both of those ideas?

[RuleBritannia]

LaMont, I think I'm going to have to leave the conversation, you're not really making any sense, your posts are just full of non-sequitur and other random crazy talk. You keep saying that I'm wrong about things I never even brought up, you're constantly going off on really bizarre tangents and you think you can make up your own definitions of words. In short: you're crazy.

[JimC]

LaMont, I think I'm going to have to leave the conversation, you're not really making any sense, your posts are just full of non-sequitur and other random crazy talk. You keep saying that I'm wrong about things I never even brought up, you're constantly going off on really bizarre tangents and you think you can make up your own definitions of words. In short: you're crazy.

This last sentence edges a little close to being an ad hom. Please stick to criticising arguments.

[LaMont Cranston]

JimC, Let me put in a good word for RuleBritannia. I have no doubt that he sincerely believes what he believes, and he's never run into anybody like me before.
I also get it that RuleBritannia is having some difficulty getting next to some of the ideas and concepts I'm throwing his way. Everything I present in my posts...OK, almost everything...comes from time-honored sources, including history, philosophy and science.

On other forums, I've been called all kinds of names (i.e. "an unspeakable cunt"), and I've been accused of all kinds of things, especially preaching. Generally, speaking, I laugh at the insults and respond to them with humor. I must admit, I do treat those people who are genuine and sincere differently than I treat the arrogant, angry, insulting types, but I do prefer to fight my own battles rather than reporting people.

Thank you for keeping an eye on things!

[LaMont Cranston]

RuleBritannia, There's nothing complicated about what I'm saying to you or what I'm asking you to do. Basically, I'm asking you to explain how you know what you know, how you justify the set of viewpoints you are attempting to present. If you choose to walk away from the discussion, see you around...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

JimC, Let me put in a good word for RuleBritannia. I have no doubt that he sincerely believes what he believes, and he's never run into anybody like me before.
I also get it that RuleBritannia is having some difficulty getting next to some of the ideas and concepts I'm throwing his way. Everything I present in my posts...OK, almost everything...comes from time-honored sources, including history, philosophy and science.

On other forums, I've been called all kinds of names (i.e. "an unspeakable cunt"), and I've been accused of all kinds of things, especially preaching. Generally, speaking, I laugh at the insults and respond to them with humor. I must admit, I do treat those people who are genuine and sincere differently than I treat the arrogant, angry, insulting types, but I do prefer to fight my own battles rather than reporting people.

Thank you for keeping an eye on things!

LaMont. It is not a question of what you are prepared to accept. Personal attacks are not allowed because of the atmosphere that it creates in the forum as much as any offence caused to an individual. The exception is where it is clearly in jest and both parties understand that. RB did not appear to be joking.

[Feck]

It is a constant amusement to me that meta-physicians seem to forget that EGO drives them ... If you want to argue someone into submission go pick on a racist or a fundie the heat and angst displayed by so called deep thinkers makes me think that they should think a little more and argue a little less ....


TRY Thinking about what PLAY NICE means !