20 Years ago...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Letum

Whilst I also agree with this to some lesser extent, it isn't the angle I was
coming from at all.
I don't think the stance you lay out holds a lot of water.

I guess I didn't understand you, then. I was trying to put my position in terms of what I thought was your position.

After reading your most recent posts, I still don't understand it, but it seems heartless and simplistic, if you will forgive my brusqueness.

If you cannot understand empathic sentiment for members of one's own species, I will ask Sky to explain/debate the genetic causality of such sympathy, something I have been meaning to do for some time now, before I was distracted by the Were-fish game.

(Speaking of which, I forgot to thank you for that, so thanks. It was a lot of fun.)

[Skybird]

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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.

I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.

In standard form, my arguments runs like this:

1. For something to be more or less bad, there must be someone for whom it is more or less bad.
2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
3. Therefor a larger massacre is no more or less bad then a smaller one.

It can be demonstrated as valid:

1. For X to be true, there must be someone for whom X is true.
2. In the event of Y, there is no one for whom X is true.
3. Therefor, in the event of Y, X is not true.

Where X is somethings ability to be more or less bad
And Y is a massacre

I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.

Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.

As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.

[Letum]

[...]it seems heartless and simplistic

Hehe....SB accuses me of not being simple enough, you of me being too simple.
I don't think it is heartless at all. It does not lessen the magnitude of suffering.

If you cannot understand empathic sentiment for members of one's own
species[...]

My approach is not less emphatic in any way so far as I can see, although
that is, of course, a matter of opinion. I am personally very much
tormented by the multitude of suffering that takes place daily. I don't think
anyone who could see within me could accuse me of lacking empathic
sentiment.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.

I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.

In standard form, my arguments runs like this:



It can be demonstrated as valid:




I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.

Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.

As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.

That is upmost absurd what you say. The events you now even try to press into a formula, have always somebody for whom they are true: for example us while we talk about them and be aware of them having taken place. We see them, we value them, and we conclude which one if the greater tragedy when comporing numbers. we could eventually also use other standards, too, but comparing we do, and then come to a statement saying this or that is the greater tragedy. that does not need any epistemology, no X and no Y, no goats and no farmers.

Man, get real again, for your own sake! You really make me feel worried for the mental representation of the world you seem to spend your Second Life in. You try to outline twists and complexities that simply are not there.

Okay, it seems nobody of us seems to get through to you. For my own part, I leave it here.

Tip: read Marc Aurel. A good remedy against excessive thinking and a hyperactive intellect that hijacks people's minds. As I said before, I don't think you are stupid, Letum, quite the oppposite: you are too smart.

[Letum]

If I am "too smart" then you are not intellectually serious enough.
You repeatedly comment about me instead of trying to find fault with any of
the premises or conclusions I make.

"excessive thinking" indeed!
What was it some Greek once said about the unobserved life?

[Aramike]

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

The good news is that the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't even try. In fact, even the US War Department saw it differently, as indicated by the Sole Survivor policy instated after the Sullivan brothers tragedy.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

If I am "too smart" then you are not intellectually serious enough.
You repeatedly comment about me instead of trying to find fault with any of
the premises or conclusions I make.

"excessive thinking" indeed!
What was it some Greek once said about the unobserved life?

I think he was just trying to be tactful.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

If I am "too smart" then you are not intellectually serious enough.
You repeatedly comment about me instead of trying to find fault with any of
the premises or conclusions I make.

"excessive thinking" indeed!
What was it some Greek once said about the unobserved life?

Your premises and conclusions, as you call them, are too queer. You expect reason in reply to what shows a lack of reason. You abuse intellectualism to artifically create abstract alternate realities that you then demand to be taken for the "real" reality. And if one tells you that you and the others do not talk about the same reality by that, you complain about not meeting your demands.

Seen that way you are the problem in this, Letum, and that's why I cannot avoid to refer to you when adressing the problem of your strange claims. Although it refers to you personally, it is not meant personally (in that it is not meant to personally attack you).

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

No. In this case they are not equally bad because premise 2 does not stand in this case.

2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.

in this case there is someone for whom the events are more or less bad for; the mothers and surviving children.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your premises and conclusions, as you call them, are too queer. You expect reason in reply to what shows a lack of reason.

If I lack reason, then use better reason to show me where I lack reason.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

No. In this case they are not equally bad because premise 2 does not stand in this case.

in this case there is someone for whom the events are more or less bad for; the mothers and surviving children.

You're WAY overcomplicating it if you need to put subsections and conditions in place.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You're WAY overcomplicating it if you need to put subsections and conditions in place.

If it is complicated then either A) I am wrong, in which case it should be simple
to show me which of my premises is wrong or why the argument is logically
invalid. Or B) It reflects a complex reality.

[Skybird]

Or c.) it simply is complete nonsense, in which case neither logic nor reason can achieve anything to illustrate that. Only a fool not knowing what humour is tries to explain his joke - and then wonders that despite his explanation still nobody is laughing.

[Letum]

There is no nonsense that can not be shown to be nonsense by systematic
and rigorous rationalism. The more nonsense it is, the easier it is to do.

[Skybird]

Okay, Letum, it's not you, it's us.

And still we others do compare two tragic events, and eventually find the one to be more severe a tragedy than the other, no matter wether in past nor present, no matter whether being personally influenced and affected, or not.

As a wise man once said: if he wants to go there at all cost, let him go. Bon voyage, then.