JK Rowling vs. History
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
mebbe, instead of psychological flaws it's idiosyncrasies you fellas are dickering about
flaw implies damage or imperfection; idiosyncrasy is just difference
and, of course, some idiosyncrasy is damaging
and, of course, idiosyncrasy is apart from psycho-illness
anywho: idiosyncrasy seems to be the word that let's you both have cake
flaw implies damage or imperfection; idiosyncrasy is just difference
and, of course, some idiosyncrasy is damaging
and, of course, idiosyncrasy is apart from psycho-illness
anywho: idiosyncrasy seems to be the word that let's you both have cake
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Except that it's neutral, Henry. And I don't think that calling the propensity to steal, lie, slander, abuse, and so on, can be dropped into any neutral category without obscuring the facts.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:18 pm anywho: idiosyncrasy seems to be the word that let's you both have cake
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
You see propensity; I see possibility.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:20 pmExcept that it's neutral, Henry. And I don't think that calling the propensity to steal, lie, slander, abuse, and so on, can be dropped into any neutral category without obscuring the facts.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:18 pm anywho: idiosyncrasy seems to be the word that let's you both have cake
It's possible Joe will steal, not probable.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Stealing, we might say, is only "possible" on various occasions: but it's universal at some time -- everybody sometimes takes something that's not really theirs, sooner or later. It might just be a pen from the office, or it might be a billion dollars of taxpayer funds. But we all get into the game somehow, sooner or later.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:23 pm You see propensity; I see possibility.
It's possible Joe will steal, not probable.
Lying, we might also say, is merely optional on specific occasions (on specific occasions, one can choose to lie or not) -- but everybody sometime lies, or at least, as we say, "stretches the truth." Likewise other flaws: human beings can "possibly" decide to do them or not, on specific occasions.
But being morally flawed, that's universal. It's more than merely "probable." It's "certain." And so I'm pointing to our human propensity toward moral failure, as a whole...a thing which we all know we have.
After all, we don't get through life without at least a few regrets, right?
-
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Well, I know I'm fallible and have regrets. If others aren't and don't, then good on them. They're much greater people than I am.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:34 pmStealing, we might say, is only "possible" on various occasions: but it's universal at some time -- everybody sometimes takes something that's not really theirs, sooner or later. It might just be a pen from the office, or it might be a billion dollars of taxpayer funds. But we all get into the game somehow, sooner or later.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:23 pm You see propensity; I see possibility.
It's possible Joe will steal, not probable.
Lying, we might also say, is merely optional on specific occasions (on specific occasions, one can choose to lie or not) -- but everybody sometime lies, or at least, as we say, "stretches the truth." Likewise other flaws: human beings can "possibly" decide to do them or not, on specific occasions.
But being morally flawed, that's universal. It's more than merely "probable." It's "certain." And so I'm pointing to our human propensity toward moral failure, as a whole...a thing which we all know we have.
After all, we don't get through life without at least a few regrets, right?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
You win! The world is totally corrupt, evil, and a terrible place to live and it is populated with totally defective flawed beings incapable of achieving virtue, happiness or success.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:12 pmWho is doing the "supposing" in your question? Do you mean that humans "suppose" each other to be X or Y? Or do you mean there's a standard higher than the merely contingent facts about what humans happen to do, a standard to which we can refer that shows them to be flawed?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:18 pm If something is a flaw it means it's not what it's supposed to be, a kind of defect. You are trying to imply that anything short of infallibility is a defect or a flaw. Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that human beings are supposed to be infallible?
That standard, of course, would be the ideal. And we certainly do know that humans fall short of the ideal. That's what "fallible" or "flawed" implies.No, that's true. Asking a creature to perform an action for which it is not designed is not a flaw. It's not a flaw in fish that they can't fly, or a flaw in a bird if it can't burrow like a hare. Being "perfect" is relative to the design purpose of the creature in question. And asking a human being to know everything is no more sensible than asking a teaspoon to hold the Atlantic, and faulting it if it doesn't.Not knowing everything is not a psychological flaw.
But lying, theft, greed, selfishness, cruelty, wastefulness....and so on, certainly are flaws. We are quite capable of choosing not to do them on any particular occasion: though it seems we cannot keep ourselves from falling into some of them sometimes, for sure.
Those are flaws. And human beings have plenty of those things, and should not have them. They would be better, "more perfect" human beings if they did not. So we're not asking any fish to fly here. We're only asking that a human being should live up to the best of his/her designed potential, human beings' own ideal state, not that of something else.
Hmmm. Were that true, there would be no explanation for any "flaws" or "defects" in humans ever happening. For even if we imagine these flaws only appear later than birth, it's clear that the potential and propensity to produce flaws is itself a flaw, and is obviously intrinsic, since it's also universal.Human beings are not born with any intrinsic flaws or defects.
Interesting view. How do you make the connection between "individual human beings' choices" and floods, fires, tsunamis, landslides, cancers, birth defects, accidents....and so on?All the pain, suffering, and failure in this world is the consequence of the wrong choices of individual human beings.
And what do you make of the fact that the bad decisions of one individual very often harm others? How is that to be dealt with by your theory that we, as individuals, have ourselves to blame for our own state?
I'm glad it's your world, and not mine.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
If Original Sin stains us, then you're right.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:34 pmStealing, we might say, is only "possible" on various occasions: but it's universal at some time -- everybody sometimes takes something that's not really theirs, sooner or later. It might just be a pen from the office, or it might be a billion dollars of taxpayer funds. But we all get into the game somehow, sooner or later.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:23 pm You see propensity; I see possibility.
It's possible Joe will steal, not probable.
Lying, we might also say, is merely optional on specific occasions (on specific occasions, one can choose to lie or not) -- but everybody sometime lies, or at least, as we say, "stretches the truth." Likewise other flaws: human beings can "possibly" decide to do them or not, on specific occasions.
But being morally flawed, that's universal. It's more than merely "probable." It's "certain." And so I'm pointing to our human propensity toward moral failure, as a whole...a thing which we all know we have.
After all, we don't get through life without at least a few regrets, right?
Me: I see no flaw or failing or lingerin' legacy, but only a necessary feature of our bein' free wills.
As I see it: not a one of us has the luxury of appealin' to a sinful nature. In fact, it's quite the opposite, cuz along with bein' free wills we're each also a conscience. So, when a man steals or lies or murders or rapes, it's totally on him. He chose to ignore his compass. True North is in his face and he decided to go south instead. This is not a flaw of his nature but, as I say, a necessary feature of him bein' a free will. If anything, man is naturally skewed toward the good (which makes his evil all the worse).
When man sins, it's not him givin' in to a sinful nature; it's him, bein' sinful.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
I don't know, Gary...you seem alright to me.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
If it's THE world, then it's both of ours, of course. The question is, if that's our situation, what's to be done about it?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:52 pm You win! The world is totally corrupt, evil, and a terrible place to live and it is populated with totally defective flawed beings incapable of achieving virtue, happiness or success.
I'm glad it's your world, and not mine.
And, of course, that's nothing we're going to get done on our own. Fallible creatures are not going to eliminate fallibility.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
I don't disagree at all on the question of personal responsibility, of course. And yes, we all have options. And yes, we all have a conscience as well -- though some keep theirs in better shape than others of us do. The salient question might be, given that we all have options, a conscience and responsibility, why don't we invariably choose the good? Who, but an evil creature, would prefer evil to good?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:09 pm If Original Sin stains us, then you're right.
Me: I see no flaw or failing or lingerin' legacy, but only a necessary feature of our bein' free wills.
As I see it: not a one of us has the luxury of appealin' to a sinful nature. In fact, it's quite the opposite, cuz along with bein' free wills we're each also a conscience. So, when a man steals or lies or murders or rapes, it's totally on him. He chose to ignore his compass. True North is in his face and he decided to go south instead. This is not a flaw of his nature but, as I say, a necessary feature of him bein' a free will. If anything, man is naturally skewed toward the good (which makes his evil all the worse).
When man sins, it's not him givin' in to a sinful nature; it's him, bein' sinful.
And that requires some explaining, as well.
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
If this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531
Social media gets ugly once again.
I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.
On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.
What are your thoughts?
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
a. noRCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:35 amSpeak for yourself! Who is us? You live in an asylum?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:03 am We all have psychological flaws - every single one of us
Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.
a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar.
b. The man who says, "everyone steals sometimes," is a thief.
c. The man who says, "everyone cheats sometimes," is a cheat.
And the man who says everyone is crazy is a nut.
b no
c no
-
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Wow. You are awfully touchy today.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pmIf this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531
Social media gets ugly once again.
I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.
On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.
What are your thoughts?
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
-
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
As far as the view expressed above. It is mine. I don't know what Rowling's exact views are. However, so far she seems to have mostly just stuck up for people who've been fired from their jobs over their expression of political views counter to yours.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pmIf this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531
Social media gets ugly once again.
I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.
On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.
What are your thoughts?
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
As I say elsewhere I'll address someone by whatever gender they want so long as I can remember to keep it straight what their "preference" is (I am forgetful at times and might slip once in a while) but I still think it's not entirely healthy for an individual to pretend to be something they really aren't. It just causes friction in their life and with people around them. You can call it a "naturalistic fallacy" if you want but going against social norms does seem to come with some consequences. And social norms generally seem to be there for a reason, albeit not always one that is self-evident all the time.
-
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Although, I suppose shaming people for political misgivings is maybe a new social norm that is forming too and forming for a reason. I don't know.