20 Years ago...

Skybird · 06-05-09, 05:08 AM

As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place. Because only when you assume the tragedy had not taken place, you can not compare scale and quality of two such events. If there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, how can the tragedy be any greater, you said. But that we still can know of events unfolding somewhere in the world, without us being directly affected, and that we still can compare the two to each other in scale, size, quality - that you do ignore. Even worse, your conclucison of "if nobody hears the sound, the sound is noiseless" can be truned against you. I misery or drama I cause and do not take note of, is as well as non-existing/unimportant/unassessable. That way somebody driving a car and overtaking another car so dangerously that the other drives in shock drives off the road, against a tree and gets killed along with the whole family in the car, and the first driver not seeing it in the mirror and driving on and away - well, according to you that is no tragedy/drama. One could even use your argument to claim that if the fikrst driver get caught, he should not be held repsnsible, since it is highly questionable that he has casued somethign that could be judged or evaluated by standards that would allow to hold him responsible.

Or WWI and WWII. According to you, once the last survivors and their offsprings have died in the near future, and no witnesses lives anymore, according to your logic we could not compare the consequences and different death tolls between the two anymore. Because they do not mean any drama for us anymore, they are not affecting us directly.

A tragedy unfolding in the world somewhere today - how could it be a tragedy if we simply refsue to take note of it? Or to refer to the UN: if we ignore the genocide in Darfhur, how could it be a genocide, then?

So, I think you are not only a lil' bit lifted-off, and absurd, but also dangerous, considering the consequences you invite. Or in the aid-convoy example I referred to, there were guys in command who obviously also refused to compare two situations. That'S why they stayed and wasted time for so long, and probably caused the dying of many more people elsewhere for they alolowed their trucks to be locked down for so long. they wanted to avoid the smaller tragedy, and by that allowed a greater tragedy happening. Because they did not weigh and compare.

Not judging and noit commenting, is nice for mediation and buddhist ideology. But in everyday life, we need to assess, evaluate and judge things, make decisions for options and decide against other options by that, and accept the consequences we cause. We must not always be emotionally aroused when doing so, that is positive, but that does not mean we do not differ between the different amounts of suffering in two different events of drama, desaster or tragedy. We cannot escape to do so, even more if we have the intention to get engaged. And if the things already took place a,ng time agi in the past, we still can - and do - compare them.

You make it very complicated, Letum, which would be okay if you would gain anything from it. But you gain nothing from it.

Keep it simple, then.

06-05-09, 05:08 AM	#16
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,645 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place. Because only when you assume the tragedy had not taken place, you can not compare scale and quality of two such events. If there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, how can the tragedy be any greater, you said. But that we still can know of events unfolding somewhere in the world, without us being directly affected, and that we still can compare the two to each other in scale, size, quality - that you do ignore. Even worse, your conclucison of "if nobody hears the sound, the sound is noiseless" can be truned against you. I misery or drama I cause and do not take note of, is as well as non-existing/unimportant/unassessable. That way somebody driving a car and overtaking another car so dangerously that the other drives in shock drives off the road, against a tree and gets killed along with the whole family in the car, and the first driver not seeing it in the mirror and driving on and away - well, according to you that is no tragedy/drama. One could even use your argument to claim that if the fikrst driver get caught, he should not be held repsnsible, since it is highly questionable that he has casued somethign that could be judged or evaluated by standards that would allow to hold him responsible. Or WWI and WWII. According to you, once the last survivors and their offsprings have died in the near future, and no witnesses lives anymore, according to your logic we could not compare the consequences and different death tolls between the two anymore. Because they do not mean any drama for us anymore, they are not affecting us directly. A tragedy unfolding in the world somewhere today - how could it be a tragedy if we simply refsue to take note of it? Or to refer to the UN: if we ignore the genocide in Darfhur, how could it be a genocide, then? So, I think you are not only a lil' bit lifted-off, and absurd, but also dangerous, considering the consequences you invite. Or in the aid-convoy example I referred to, there were guys in command who obviously also refused to compare two situations. That'S why they stayed and wasted time for so long, and probably caused the dying of many more people elsewhere for they alolowed their trucks to be locked down for so long. they wanted to avoid the smaller tragedy, and by that allowed a greater tragedy happening. Because they did not weigh and compare. Not judging and noit commenting, is nice for mediation and buddhist ideology. But in everyday life, we need to assess, evaluate and judge things, make decisions for options and decide against other options by that, and accept the consequences we cause. We must not always be emotionally aroused when doing so, that is positive, but that does not mean we do not differ between the different amounts of suffering in two different events of drama, desaster or tragedy. We cannot escape to do so, even more if we have the intention to get engaged. And if the things already took place a,ng time agi in the past, we still can - and do - compare them. You make it very complicated, Letum, which would be okay if you would gain anything from it. But you gain nothing from it. Keep it simple, then. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.