Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2878-2882 (19-23 January 2015)
DSL:
--- Quote from: Markus Ramikin on 21 Jan 2015, 01:45 ---DSL: makes sense, though it seems to me the problem lies more with Dora than with Sven in this case.
--- End quote ---
We don't disagree. Dora's perceptions, accurate or otherwise, are the major driver of developments here.
BenRG:
Oddly enough, I can see this all working towards the 2014 cast poster 'garden party'.
Time-skip forward three or more months. Faye has just left rehab after some time recovering from the worst and most self-destructive few weeks of her life and is looking to reconnect and rebuild bridges. Dora, too, is trying to put her connections to her Northampton friends back in order after a guilt-induced self-exile after Faye hitting rock bottom (she blamed herself, no matter how many times Marten, Hannelore and Tai told her that such a viewpoint was self-indulgent stupidity). Marten decided to get all the gang together in order to do so. Veronica volunteers Jim's big backyard as the venue.
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: Markus Ramikin on 21 Jan 2015, 01:45 ---There is no such thing as 'two conflicting things are right'.
--- End quote ---
Like I said. That certainty is the root of most human evil. if it were obvious, there wouldn't be any conflict in the world.
Let me be clear: aside from fundamental facts about the universe, nothing is "true." If nothing is true, nothing can be right.
The only way to define anything as "right" or "wrong" is to make assumptions about what must be true. To establish axioms.
Let us establish the Axiom that there is nothing more important than friendship. Based on that single axiom, what Dora did is wrong.
See how easy that is? No matter what it is you believe to be true, no matter how deeply you've reasoned it out, it's all resting on some assumption that you simply assume is correct. Rather more critically, you can't even get to an actual fundamental truth. Try to justify your assumptions, and you will find you've simply invoked another set of axioms.
Critically, not everyone is using the same axioms. Sometimes, you can demonstrate that someone's axioms contradict each other. As such, their reasoning can't be "right." Sometime you can demonstrate that someone's reasoning is in conflict with their axioms. This is another case that can't be right.
But two people can apply different axioms to the same problem and come up with different answers. Both answers are "right." "Wrong" in this case doesn't mean "not true," it means "I reject your axioms."
Most people axioms aren't formal. They are beliefs and feelings. "I have to protect my business." "I have to act in a morally sound manner." :I have to support my friends." "Good people don't do hurtful things."
Those can all be the beliefs of a single person. Using any combination of those beliefs a single person can reach the conclusion that a single action is bot right and wrong. Or that two exclusive actions are both the right thing to do.
The fact is, there reasoning is correct. The failure of humans, and wellspring of evil, comes of the desire for simplicity and black vs white answers. But reality doesn't work in those terms. Reality doesn't even factor right or wrong. Reality just is. Everything else is just a point of view.
Markus Ramikin:
--- Quote ---Let us establish the Axiom that there is nothing more important than friendship.
--- End quote ---
Uh, why would we want to do that? It's clearly nonsense. Sure, "nothing is true" if the only thing you examine for truth-value is sweeping statements like that.
A certain character once said, "My favorite three questions are, What do I want?, What do I have?, and How can I best use the latter to get the former?" I have always found it a wonderful summary that cuts through a lot of philosophical nonsense. You don't need any axioms around values such as friendship. Just need to realize that you have multiple values and need to weigh them. Have an idea how important friendship is to you - obviously it's not infinitely important - compared to other things. And to the degree that friendship has priority in your life, what's the best way to pursue it with your limited time and energy.
Not saying it's an easy problem. It can be fiendishly difficult. But high mathematics isn't easy either, doesn't mean a true solution to an equation doesn't exist.
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: Markus Ramikin on 21 Jan 2015, 02:46 ---
--- Quote ---Let us establish the Axiom that there is nothing more important than friendship.
--- End quote ---
Uh, why would we want to do that?
--- End quote ---
To create a sample axiom that allows for an example that doesn't, itself, require further explanation. You want me to write a whole thesis on a concept, with real world detail, you have to pay me. You probably don't want to do that.
Most of the time, people don't reason out their beliefs. Since their beliefs are effectively their axioms, people haven't reasoned out their axioms. And in this case I mean all people. For every ideal you think you've handled rationally, there are probably 100 that you aren't even aware of. Your beliefs about the world have been forming ad hoc since you were born. Some of them formed before you knew what reasoning is.
When presented with internal or external conflicts, people tend to choose "destroy all uncertainty with prejudice." This leads to over reaction, war, useless self blame. Lots of different things.
Here's a really good Axiom: Never take a decision until you absolutely have to. Is it "the truth?" Of course not. But in a vast range of situations, it's probably the best place to start. But not always. It's not really a moral axiom, so people who use it as belief are comfortable when other beliefs conflict with it. Breaking the "rule" doesn't represent a moral failure. Indeed, it can be spun as a virtue. Look at how decisive I am!
We do this all the time, juggling beliefs to get answers we're comfortable with. The issue comes in when the answers conflict and we aren't comfortable with any of them. Like say the answers say you have to protect your business and protect your friend, but you can't both without hurting your friend or your business.
Guilt is not a bad thing, in itself. I guess. It would be weird if most of humanity was wired for a pathological response. Guilt in a no win situation can act, in a reasonably healthy mind, as a motivation to find a different answer--either for the problem at hand or for similar issues in the future. Guilt only becomes an issue, when it is both misplaced and accepted as misplaced. Otherwise, it's just a file index tag that says "this memory doesn't playout the way I would like." and that's okay.
Emotion is very important to how humans work, but sometimes we give it too much power. "I have guilt here, so I must be wrong." But all guilt is is a signal of discomfort. Sometimes discomfort is the best you can do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version