A Can of Worms . . .

[blackcab]

Flatland by Edwin Abbott re-tells the story in a very amusing way: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/048627263X/203-8444635-7563954

 

[timsk]

In my posts, the latest of which now sadly cannot now be seen, I was offering explanations in solution to certain questions posed, and then putting forward thoughts so that other members could provide counter arguments which could then result in better solutions. This exchange of views is simply conversation amongst people who do not always agree with each other about everything. You (Chicken Curry, timsk, Bramble,Splitlink etc.) could conduct this sort of ‘ferocious’ criticism on your own (assuming you had the necessary intellectual discipline), but others can help greatly. It helps you to think of criticisms from another perspective, provided you free your mind to just the possibility that you may be wrong.

starspacer,
I am relieved to hear that your posts are motivated by a positive intent and not a negative one. The objective of "offering explanations in solution to certain questions posed, and then putting forward thoughts so that other members could provide counter arguments which could then result in better solutions" is a noble one and one that I endorse, heartily.

As for freeing my mind to the possibility that I may be wrong, I refer you to my opening post. I contribute to these forums for precisely this reason and will not hesitate to modify my views in light of posts made by others and as my knowledge and experience increases.
Tim.

 

[frugi]

In my posts, the latest of which now sadly cannot now be seen, I was offering explanations in solution to certain questions posed, and then putting forward thoughts so that other members could provide counter arguments which could then result in better solutions.

Starspacer, the post you refer to offered no solutions or explanations of any kind. It was an unacceptably abusive tirade against Chicken Curry, which is why it was deleted. No moral evil manifest there.

Thank you for your attempt to nourish our brains with pink allegories. The effort and well-meaning intent is appreciated, if not the colour scheme. However I (and almost certainly the majority of other readers) am familiar with the Cave, as it was covered during Greek GCSE by a teacher who preferred to read from Plato than teach irregular verbs, a penchant for which the whole class was grateful.

Speaking of "moral evil", A bit of Kant, Sartre, Aristotle and Hume wouldn't go amiss though, so if you felt like tackling the question of "Is evil / morality an absolute or relative concept?" in your usual manner, I'd be very grateful. Seriously.

I think we have an innate sense of right and wrong hardwired at a basic low level in our genes (which is reinforced greatly by nurture and experience) in order to aid survival, much as we have a strong instinct to drink water or reproduce. Don't kill people, lie continually and steal their mates and one has a better chance of surviving in a group situation. So although there is no absolute moral standard external from ourselves - as in one described by a 'higher power', or featured as part of the universe - it can feel absolute because the concept is inextricably bound in our consciousness. Somehow we just "know" intutively when an act is wrong. We can of course choose to act wrongly despite this feeling, though I'm not sure this adequately explains people who seem to devote their lives to doing wrong. Perhaps they are genuinely missing these blueprints of conscience that stop most of us taking up genocide as a hobby.

The genes which contain the best blueprint of our sense of morality (i.e. promote best survival prospects) should be the ones which will be replicated in future generations. So perhaps morality is a grey area between a simple matter of taste & cultural mores (moral relativism) and something innate. This distinction has confused me for years; still, at least the birghtest of philosophers haven't managed to answer it with much consensus either. Must read more biological teleology.

Sorry to turn your thread into an irksome can of philosophical terms, Tim, but at least it makes a change from scalping.

 

[starspacer]

Starspacer, the post you refer to offered no solutions or explanations of any kind. It was an unacceptably abusive tirade against Chicken Curry, which is why it was deleted. No moral evil manifest there.

And how can anyone judge this, since those in a position of power will not allow the masses to see it?
Censorship in this form is the enemy of erudite thought and imagination, since it cuts off the life blood of creativity: ideas.

Take a look at these images of Tiananmen Square below. It could almost be a picture of the Elysian Fields. You would never realize that it was once an arena of the slaughter of innocents, since it is so heavily censored.

images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen

Some people choose happy ignorance rather than troubled intellectualism and they remain in a state of blissful mediocrity. It is a variation of Johnson’s paradox. He wrote that Rasselas was a prince in Africa, who was living a mediocre existence in the ‘Happy Valley’. Bored with his life, he embarked on a journey to find intellectual and spiritual nourishment. Of course, the moral of the story was that happiness is unattainable. It is the pursuit of happiness, ipso facto, which is happiness. Similarly, it is critical questioning (which to some may appear harsh) which leads to intellectual advancement and it is the process, not the end which provides nourishment for the mind.

As for Sartre, et al, I don’t think I could bear all that intense talk of doom and despair.

 

[chump]

"In the words of Apollinaire " No sooner does a genius appear, than all the dunces in the world conspire against him"....alternatively in the words of chump...when another member masquerading as a deluded genius pops his head over the parapet to commune with other members, those with expert cloaca recognition radar press the button and bring in the mods to sweep away the 'crap' .
A "genius" without the emotional control to refrain from getting personal and spitting out the dummy when someone gets personal with him is no "genius"...just another deluded member with a long journey still in front of him ...

 

[Chicken Curry]

I must admit that although I thought Starspacer's comments were uncalled for, and were possibly symptomatic of a personal problem, I was not unduly upset by his remarks.

I would not object to his post being reinstated if that is possible.

I really do not care much what people say to me or about me.

It just doesn't matter that much in the great scheme of things.

 

[chump]

LOL...frugi . .lost something in the translation though

 

[starspacer]

"In the words of Apollinaire " No sooner does a genius appear, than all the dunces in the world conspire against him"....alternatively in the words of chump...when another member masquerading as a deluded genius pops his head over the parapet to commune with other members, those with expert cloaca recognition radar press the button and bring in the mods to sweep away the 'crap' .
A "genius" without the emotional control to refrain from getting personal and spitting out the dummy when someone gets personal with him is no "genius"...just another deluded member with a long journey still in front of him ...

I see that you also have been censored chump.

 

[dbphoenix]

I must admit that although I thought Starspacer's comments were uncalled for, and were possibly symptomatic of a personal problem, I was not unduly upset by his remarks.

I would not object to his post being reinstated if that is possible.

I really do not care much what people say to me or about me.

It just doesn't matter that much in the great scheme of things.

In the great scheme of things, no. But allowing that sort of vitriol to stand sends the message that it's okay. And next thing you know, you're ET.

Which takes us back to the now-dead and relatively pointless discussion about guidelines, and, please, let's not go there.

--Db

 

[chump]

Ha, but I happen to like my censors


Edit...frugi..I don't use "nasty" words..I communicate unambiguously