Good and Evil

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:40 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:33 pm

There is no value as mix of good and evil.
Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.
Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.
It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7611
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:44 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:46 am
But there is still visual clarity, a windshield with a chip in it can still be used regardless of its deficiency. The windshield is lacking in integrity but portions of it are still clear.
IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

Can't help you there.
But a windshield can be damaged and still useful.
IIIII'm gonna say you're still mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by henry quirk » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:40 am

Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.
Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.
It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.
Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7611
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:11 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 am

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.
It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.
Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
Right. One can pick apart an action, and show good and bad elements within it, without being able to decide whether the action overall was good or evil. Take the action of stealing bread to feed one's family. Feeding one's family is good. Stealing is bad. And that doesn't make the action neutral...it makes it a discrete composite of good and bad elements.

And overall, the action of stealing bread could be warranted or unwarranted, depending not the circumstance and weighting of the stealing and feeding -- how necessary was the theft, and how needy was the family, for example. Nevertheless, the stealing will never itself be made good, or the feeding itself made bad, by the composite of those two actions.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:24 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 am

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.
It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.
Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:49 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:44 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:58 am

IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

Can't help you there.
But a windshield can be damaged and still useful.
IIIII'm gonna say you're still mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.
All forms of reality are descriptive by nature, as descriptive both real life and analogies have a common bond.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by henry quirk » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:24 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm


It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.
Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)
I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7611
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:28 pm
...real life and analogies have a common bond.
"A common bond," but never "total identity."

An analogy is no good if it's too far away from being connected with its subject, but also no good if it's so identical to its subject that it's the same as what it attempts to analogize. So with an analogy, we've always got to be content that it's comparable well to one aspect of its subject, and not ask that it be exactly the same as its subject in all respects.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:13 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:24 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pm


Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)
I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.
Yes it can be.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:28 pm
...real life and analogies have a common bond.
"A common bond," but never "total identity."

An analogy is no good if it's too far away from being connected with its subject, but also no good if it's so identical to its subject that it's the same as what it attempts to analogize. So with an analogy, we've always got to be content that it's comparable well to one aspect of its subject, and not ask that it be exactly the same as its subject in all respects.
All phenomenon can exist through analogies as certain qualities have a common bond with other qualities through a medial quality.

Along an infinite continuum all qualities are center points, and as center points one quality is always directed to another.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7611
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:18 pm
All phenomenon can exist through analogies...
This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:18 pm
All phenomenon can exist through analogies...
This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.
All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7611
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:18 pm
All phenomenon can exist through analogies...
This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.
All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.
Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pm

This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.
All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.
Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.
Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7611
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Good and Evil

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:48 pm
All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.
Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.
Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.
????

What happened to "analogies"? Where did this "continuum" suddenly appear from?

I'm not getting any sense of thought flow here.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest