|
Post by warrl on Oct 14, 2010 7:55:53 GMT
There's no such thing as good nor evil Good and evil is defined by personal morals which is, in turn, partially defined by society. in sort: it's all relative. There is such a thing as absolute good and absolute evil. Neither is nearly as common as some people like to think. Neither is nearly as well understood as some people like to think (I suspect they are typically least understood by those people who claim to have a thorough understanding). (Also please note that I don't claim to have a thorough understanding. Or even a better-than-average understanding.) Human interpretation of good and evil, on the other hand, is necessarily subjective.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 14, 2010 11:43:35 GMT
Note: the sentence "Evil always has reason, only good needs no reason", is supposed to mean that people who do evil acts always find themselves excuses to do so, whereas those who do good don't feel the need to find excuses. This would imply that not only there *are* such things as good and evil, but that people actually *know*, if unconsciously, when act they rightly or wrongly.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 14, 2010 12:19:15 GMT
Note: the sentence "Evil always has reason, only good needs no reason", is supposed to mean that people who do evil acts always find themselves excuses to do so, whereas those who do good don't feel the need to find excuses. Which puts me in mind, again, of Diego on his deathbed frantically searching for justifications for his part in Jeanne's death, including "It was all Sir Young's fault!"
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 14, 2010 14:03:54 GMT
There's no such thing as good nor evil Good and evil is defined by personal morals which is, in turn, partially defined by society. in sort: it's all relative. There is such a thing as absolute good and absolute evil. Neither is nearly as common as some people like to think. Neither is nearly as well understood as some people like to think (I suspect they are typically least understood by those people who claim to have a thorough understanding). (Also please note that I don't claim to have a thorough understanding. Or even a better-than-average understanding.) Human interpretation of good and evil, on the other hand, is necessarily subjective. There is an absolute good and an absolute evil but only when defined by a single society. Several societies may have the same definition of absolute good and absolute evil but they have their own rational for them There is no such thing as a universal good and a universal evil because as of yet, we have not defined an all encompassing society of man. If group A has a set of rules defining right and wrong, and group B has a set of rules defining right and wrong (and they are not identical sets) then we wish to combine the sets into a single set, someone is going to have to accept something they consider wrong and someone is going to have to deny something they consider right. The people in group A consider their set correct and feel group B needs to accept their set completely. Group B considers their set is correct and feel group A should accept their set completely.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 14, 2010 14:16:01 GMT
Surely the nature of good and evil is wayside to this thread. It's a great philosophical question, though. Perhaps a new thread is in order?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 14, 2010 14:26:58 GMT
Agreed.... So... have we finished discussing Wednesday's comic?
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Oct 14, 2010 14:43:05 GMT
anyone else notice the etheric? aura around Annie, Kat, George, and Andrew it's not in the previous (785) but in the new one (786). look at the stairs behind them to see it
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 14, 2010 14:56:42 GMT
anyone else notice the etheric? aura around Annie, Kat, George, and Andrew it's not in the previous (785) but in the new one (786). look at the stairs behind them to see it I believe that because of a narrow focal plane. If the artist wants to draw attention to the subjects, they make it so only the subjects are completely in focus. The foreground and background are slightly blurry. In this case, the stairs are not well defined and the buildings are a single gray thing.
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Oct 14, 2010 16:57:08 GMT
An interesting discussion of evil is here: www.diggercomic.com/?p=288I'm looking forward to seeing how Parley manages things. Will she teleport the whole group down to the shore?
|
|
zombie
New Member
Hmm
Posts: 42
|
Post by zombie on Oct 14, 2010 19:21:56 GMT
Great. Now I'm reading Digger. Again. And it's all your fault.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 14, 2010 22:02:24 GMT
Boy Annie just does not operate on that wavelength, huh. KISS? She could react otherwise if they were an engaged couple, as opposed to engaged in an outrageously exasperating behaviour that made her roll her eyes almost every day for half a year... I dunno, I kinda figure that was the shock of being teleported twice for the first time without any sort of warning. And she was happy because she finally did it right. Not the first time. Also, how the poses are changed to "what the?.."/"that wasn't clingy enough!". since he was shot in the middle of the river, that would be quite hard to find, especially as Jeanne doesn't like people crossing the river. Moreover, Jeanne still may be not the only danger. If they are successful at freeing Jeanne, I suspect there will be some . . . other . . . consequences. It's not fair that she's being used as a dam, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of water behind her. Old Grin is always up to mischief, but it's not quite the same as it was. Smitty might function as training wheels, like the Blinker Stone for Annie. (looking at the strip-slay) no comment. ;D There is such a thing as absolute good and absolute evil. Neither is nearly as common as some people like to think. I'm a Planescape fan too. In unrelated news, it just struck me that: 1) "Jeanne is stuck" is not the only problem here. It also involves elf's remnants. 2) They'll probably have to bury the pair together. 3) It's an interesting on which side of the river (or in the middle?) this should happen. 4) This very act changes the "Court vs. Forest" status closer to getting over... whatever their initial squabble was. Quoting Kipling once more, And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Oct 14, 2010 22:14:54 GMT
Great. Now I'm reading Digger. Again. And it's all your fault. Always glad to be of service. :) Loren
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 14, 2010 22:28:26 GMT
yeah after that link I'm now tempted to start reading Digger for the first time. I don't have that kind of time to spare! Thanks a LOT!
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Oct 14, 2010 22:32:57 GMT
Spare it. It's worth it.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 14, 2010 23:07:08 GMT
Yes, it is. My original evil needs no reason quotation was from Digger too, by the way.
Edit: in fact I would go as far as saying that Digger is the only webcomic that can be put on par with Gunnerkrigg Court in terms of quality storytelling. Also I totally ship Tom Siddell with Ursula Vernon they should totally marry and make many pretty comics together.
|
|
guyy
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by guyy on Oct 14, 2010 23:24:47 GMT
anyone else notice the etheric? aura around Annie, Kat, George, and Andrew it's not in the previous (785) but in the new one (786). look at the stairs behind them to see it I believe that because of a narrow focal plane. If the artist wants to draw attention to the subjects, they make it so only the subjects are completely in focus. The foreground and background are slightly blurry. In this case, the stairs are not well defined and the buildings are a single gray thing. There is, though, a very faint etheric flame-thing around Parley and Smitty in the second-to-last panel, and a similar one in the previous panel (below and to the right of the "woops" bubble). But it didn't appear the last time she teleported. Strange...
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 15, 2010 0:38:58 GMT
I believe that because of a narrow focal plane. If the artist wants to draw attention to the subjects, they make it so only the subjects are completely in focus. The foreground and background are slightly blurry. In this case, the stairs are not well defined and the buildings are a single gray thing. There is, though, a very faint etheric flame-thing around Parley and Smitty in the second-to-last panel, and a similar one in the previous panel (below and to the right of the "woops" bubble). But it didn't appear the last time she teleported. Strange... Ah, you're right... Disregard my previous post... it seems it was me who is a little blurry!
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 15, 2010 0:41:35 GMT
I think Smitty is wide eyed because they DID bip to the ravine floor. Parley was working out what she'd need to do to get them down there and she got them there... luckily she has good reflexes and bip'ed them back before any drama could happen!
|
|
salsa
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by salsa on Oct 15, 2010 1:13:17 GMT
Great. Now I'm reading Digger. Again. And it's all your fault. You that like it's a bad thing!
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 15, 2010 4:55:29 GMT
There is an absolute good and an absolute evil but only when defined by a single society. Several societies may have the same definition of absolute good and absolute evil but they have their own rational for them But you are right back to my distinction between what IS good and evil, and what PEOPLE THINK is good and evil. Human knowledge of the universe does not actually define the universe - it only defines our knowledge. In other words, since our understanding of reality is not absolute, reality is also not absolute. I cannot accept that. Instead, I suggest that it is possible for humans to be mistaken about reality.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 15, 2010 8:25:59 GMT
There is an absolute good and an absolute evil but only when defined by a single society. Several societies may have the same definition of absolute good and absolute evil but they have their own rational for them But you are right back to my distinction between what IS good and evil, and what PEOPLE THINK is good and evil. Human knowledge of the universe does not actually define the universe - it only defines our knowledge. In other words, since our understanding of reality is not absolute, reality is also not absolute. I cannot accept that. Instead, I suggest that it is possible for humans to be mistaken about reality. Good and evil are social concepts. Any social animal (including people) have rules of society that they follow to be good or ignore to be evil. That's the nature of social animals. Which ever reality you examine, if the creatures have to work together to survive/thrive, they have rules. Following the rules is good, breaking the rules is bad. If an omega wolf tries to eat before the alpha wolf, he's bad and will be punished. Evil is just an extreme example of bad. I suppose if the omega killed all the pups so he could eat more, he'd be an evil wolf to the rest of the pack. I'm not sure how you get to "reality is also not absolute" Reality is as it is, independent of our understanding of it. We once thought the world was flat, but in reality, the earth was mostly round. Our understanding did not change reality.
|
|
|
Post by whattheziek on Oct 15, 2010 11:17:08 GMT
I do believe Mr. Smith has gotten his mind stuck in a loop.
|
|
zombie
New Member
Hmm
Posts: 42
|
Post by zombie on Oct 15, 2010 21:55:54 GMT
Great. Now I'm reading Digger. Again. And it's all your fault. Always glad to be of service. :) Loren I was planning to rebuild my PC this weekend - maybe next week.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 16, 2010 3:03:54 GMT
Good and evil are social concepts. Any social animal (including people) have rules of society that they follow to be good or ignore to be evil. That's the nature of social animals. Which ever reality you examine, if the creatures have to work together to survive/thrive, they have rules. Following the rules is good, breaking the rules is bad. Now you're assuming that good and evil must jointly be all-inclusive, that there are no morally neutral acts - or, alternatively, that "bad" as defined by society is inherently evil, and anything that society approves of is inherently good. I don't see a basis for either assumption. Unless you are trying to create a definition of "good" and "evil" that inherently eliminates even a possibility of non-subjective good and evil. And why precisely would you want to do that?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 16, 2010 3:53:49 GMT
Good and evil are social concepts. Any social animal (including people) have rules of society that they follow to be good or ignore to be evil. That's the nature of social animals. Which ever reality you examine, if the creatures have to work together to survive/thrive, they have rules. Following the rules is good, breaking the rules is bad. Now you're assuming that good and evil must jointly be all-inclusive, that there are no morally neutral acts - or, alternatively, that "bad" as defined by society is inherently evil, and anything that society approves of is inherently good. I don't see a basis for either assumption. Unless you are trying to create a definition of "good" and "evil" that inherently eliminates even a possibility of non-subjective good and evil. And why precisely would you want to do that? Morally neutral acts are acts that have no rule associated with them. Vegan rule: eat no meat. A vegan goes bowling... neutral act unless there's some meat relationship I'm unaware of. (But you get the example) And yes, I believe it is impossible to have non-subjective good and evil. Can you give me an example of how such a thing could exist?
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on Oct 17, 2010 2:15:12 GMT
Hmm. That assumes that "veganism" is the only attribute that person has, though, which is a limited view of their moral rules. In fact, another interpretation is that morally neutral acts are a myth. If you go bowling, it's probably a net positive because you have fun and you cause the people you are bowling with to have fun. Assuming the moral value of "having fun" outweighs the values of the effort and other resources you have to expend to bowl, it's a moral act.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 17, 2010 2:36:43 GMT
Hmm. That assumes that "veganism" is the only attribute that person has, though, which is a limited view of their moral rules. In fact, another interpretation is that morally neutral acts are a myth. If you go bowling, it's probably a net positive because you have fun and you cause the people you are bowling with to have fun. Assuming the moral value of "having fun" outweighs the values of the effort and other resources you have to expend to bowl, it's a moral act. That's the thing... every society has some set of rules. If you're an American, you have that set of rules, if you're a Catholic, you have that set of rules, if you're vegan, add that set of rules... If the Catholic rule says eat fish on Friday, but your vegan rule says not to, you decide which rule means more to you. Add "member of this neighborhood" rules, "member of this family" rules, "employee of X company" rules... Take the trash out on Friday, go to work so we can pay the mortgage, and wear casual clothes on "Casual Friday" All this adds up to "being good" Since you consider having fun as a moral act, one of your rules is "enjoy life" You have fun and you're being good. And if anyone else want to argue how simple this is, this small example should show how very complex it becomes.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 17, 2010 7:49:06 GMT
Actually, the Catholic rule says, "Don't eat meat on Friday, but fish doesn't count as meat so go ahead and have some," so that meshes pretty well with the vegan rule.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 17, 2010 8:05:54 GMT
But you are right back to my distinction between what IS good and evil, and what PEOPLE THINK is good and evil. Human knowledge of the universe does not actually define the universe - it only defines our knowledge. Yeah. Old good instrumentalism. However, it (as everything else) makes sense only if used consistently. In other words, since our understanding of reality is not absolute, reality is also not absolute. The error here is operating "my understanding of the reality" and then simply "reality" along with it. That is, the assumption that some "reality" subjectively exists, but does not fall under "our understanding" at the same time. Implying that the subject has access to the latter in a way somehow circumventing the former. But this breaks the definition of "subjective". That "objective" facts are accessible only via interpretation of "subjective" data is the whole point of the distinction between them. If some thing is neither observed by me (directly or via proxy) nor predicted by any model built upon such observations, it subjectively (for me) "doesn't exist" at all. If this thing exists objectively and i'll observe its effects later, it will begin to subjectively (for me) exist. Instead, I suggest that it is possible for humans to be mistaken about reality. You are right back to your distinction between what IS reality, and what PEOPLE THINK is reality. And the question whether you will include yourself in "people" who "think" this or not. Also, in context of instrumentalism what "mistaken" may ever mean? A model may be more or less adequate to the "objective reality", but it cannot equal reality.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 17, 2010 13:41:05 GMT
Actually, the Catholic rule says, "Don't eat meat on Friday, but fish doesn't count as meat so go ahead and have some," so that meshes pretty well with the vegan rule. I agree but I was tired and couldn't think of a better example... the meaning works though. If two rules conflict, you must decide which means more to you. Since this is reeeeeeeally off topic, yet very interesting, I moved some of the messages out to a new thread. Lets move the conversation there.
|
|