• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Design of Torture

M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
PolyHedral said:
Um yes? Where are you going with this?
Click to expand...

It's a trap. I suspect they're getting you to say that we couldn't know good without the bad and then say therefore, suffering.

It's a classic PoE theodicy.

I could be wrong, it's just my guess as to where he/she is going.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Meow Mix said:
It's a trap. I suspect they're getting you to say that we couldn't know good without the bad and then say therefore, suffering.

It's a classic PoE theodicy.

I could be wrong, it's just my guess as to where he/she is going.
Click to expand...
First of all I'm not a hermaphrodite. Second, Poly is not very adept at explaining his positions. All I'm doing is helping him clarify what he believes so I can address his points. If you wish to call that a trap, then so be it (why such negativism?). It's what he believes. I'm only trying to drag it out of him.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
sandy whitelinger said:
Ok, you agree that we live in a world where our understanding of it depends on percieving dualities, and free will depends on having a choice. So why do you ask why there is suffering and why suffering is bad?
Click to expand...

I totally called it.

Meow Mix said:
It's a trap. I suspect they're getting you to say that we couldn't know good without the bad and then say therefore, suffering.

It's a classic PoE theodicy.

I could be wrong, it's just my guess as to where he/she is going.
Click to expand...
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Meow Mix said:
I totally called it.
Click to expand...
Poly is not very adept at explaining his positions. All I'm doing is helping him clarify what he believes so I can address his points. If you wish to call that a trap, then so be it (why such negativism?). It's what he believes. I'm only trying to drag it out of him.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
sandy whitelinger said:
First of all I'm not a hermaphrodite. Second, Poly is not very adept at explaining his positions. All I'm doing is helping him clarify what he believes so I can address his points. If you wish to call that a trap, then so be it (why such negativism?). It's what he believes. I'm only trying to drag it out of him.
Click to expand...

I just couldn't see your male symbol thing when in posting mode and I was too lazy to go look at what sex you are -- wasn't intending to offend.

Also, "It's a trap" was stated in jest; it's something of an internet meme... for instance:

its_a_trap.jpg


Finally, to address the point that you brought up, the existence of suffering isn't necessary for us to appreciate the good or being happy. We may not have words for "good" or "happy" without suffering (knowing nothing to compare it to) but an outside observer who knew what suffering was would indeed note that the inhabitants of such a universe were capable of happiness.

An interesting analogue to this is that the word "atheist" wouldn't exist in a world where people didn't assert belief in gods, but it would still be true that they were "atheists" even if there wasn't a word for it.

There is no ontological duality between suffering/happiness -- happiness can exist just fine without the suffering, so your "point" is only a semantical one: you can only point out that there wouldn't be words for happy states of affairs because the inhabitants wouldn't know anything different.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Meow Mix said:
I just couldn't see your male symbol thing when in posting mode and I was too lazy to go look at what sex you are -- wasn't intending to offend.

Also, "It's a trap" was stated in jest; it's something of an internet meme... for instance:

its_a_trap.jpg


Finally, to address the point that you brought up, the existence of suffering isn't necessary for us to appreciate the good or being happy. We may not have words for "good" or "happy" without suffering (knowing nothing to compare it to) but an outside observer who knew what suffering was would indeed note that the inhabitants of such a universe were capable of happiness.

An interesting analogue to this is that the word "atheist" wouldn't exist in a world where people didn't assert belief in gods, but it would still be true that they were "atheists" even if there wasn't a word for it.

There is no ontological duality between suffering/happiness -- happiness can exist just fine without the suffering, so your "point" is only a semantical one: you can only point out that there wouldn't be words for happy states of affairs because the inhabitants wouldn't know anything different.
Click to expand...
So the idea that there is suffering can exist without the need to apply a value system to it?
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
sandy whitelinger said:
You seem to suggest that in a world where happieness exist that people would know they are happy. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Oh, no -- I said that someone looking in would note that they are happy, i.e. from outside that universe (someone who DID understand suffering and who DID have a word for "happy").

You don't have to have a word for "happy" or "having a good time" to be having a good time.

For instance, there is no word for... uhhhhhhh... "not being digested painfully by a random quantum monster." Nor do we have a word for that specific event (though admittedly I am using currently existing words for the sake of brevity, like "digested" which we already comprehend -- but that doesn't weaken my point).

Right now, you don't have a word to express not being digested painfully by a quantum monster but you're quite comfortable with it not happening I'd imagine.

Do I need to slap a baby for it to know how to smile? Etc.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Meow Mix said:
Oh, no -- I said that someone looking in would note that they are happy, i.e. from outside that universe (someone who DID understand suffering and who DID have a word for "happy").

You don't have to have a word for "happy" or "having a good time" to be having a good time.

For instance, there is no word for... uhhhhhhh... "not being digested painfully by a random quantum monster." Nor do we have a word for that specific event (though admittedly I am using currently existing words for the sake of brevity, like "digested" which we already comprehend -- but that doesn't weaken my point).

Right now, you don't have a word to express not being digested painfully by a quantum monster but you're quite comfortable with it not happening I'd imagine.

Do I need to slap a baby for it to know how to smile? Etc.
Click to expand...
So, for someone looking in on a situation which they deem to be happy, would they not need a comparitive value system in order to pass judgement on the relative state of those being observed?

Also, for the people who exist in some state of happieness or lack thereof, are they able to exist in whatever state oblivious to whether it is acceptable or not?
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Also, for the people who exist in some state of happieness or lack thereof, are they able to exist in whatever state oblivious to whether it is acceptable or not?
Click to expand...
Yes, they can love Big Brother.
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
In 1984, where the idea of Big Brother originates, the citizens of Oceania love Big Brother and the Party, despite the fact that they routinely torture and kill "thoughtcriminals". My point is that it's entirely possible to be happy about horrendous circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top