 Horrors, Cycle of Magic and Immortal Elves..., Will they still exist? |
  |
 Jul 26 2005, 05:24 AM
Post
#226
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298  |
Agreed.
Also, agreed. Added in edit: empiricism and existentialism are not at all the same thing, however!
Eh, I suppose as a simplified approximation, this is okay.
The term is used by us, though, in the physical world. So let's think for a minute about how terms acquire meaning. Suppose there is a term--let's call it "weme"--that is in use in a given population. What meaning does the term have? Well, that depends entirely on how it is used; there's nothing special about that string of four letters that gives it inherent power over the universe. Some groups might use "weme" to mean motherly love, and others to mean the metaphysical essence of the group as an individual, and others to mean a really rotten day. The word "weme" is just a tool to convey a concept. So the question is, what concept are you trying to convey, and is use of the word "evil" actually going to convey that concept? You have to be careful here, because if your definition strays too far from the societally accepted definition, then you won't be communicating with others in that society.
You can argue for one particular definition, but first, why not use the dictionary definition? "Which one?" Any one that fits--preferably as many as possible that make sense. That's how you can be understood while using the term.
This isn't, "Evil is what I define it to be, nothing more or nothing less." There's a set of things that go into the definition of evil; some are hard to argue for ("morally wrong") and some are easy to argue for ("injurious"). If one can argue that Horrors fit the description of the easily arguable definitions of evil, then in a very communicable sense, Horrors are evil. You may then need some clarification to refine the idea of evil, but not nearly so much as if you declare "evil" to be "whatever the heck I want". In that case, you haven't really communicated anything by using the term. |
||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 26 2005, 05:56 AM
Post
#227
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 571 Joined: 9-January 05 From: In the 9th circle of hell Member No.: 6,950 |
Ah, I remember the Dark Warrior From Harlequin's Back. I havn't had much of an opertuninty to studie earthdawn, so I hadn't heard the other. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 26 2005, 05:16 PM
Post
#228
|
|||||||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Add also, the assumption of a common frame of reference, absolutely required per:
If you're trying to communicate a concept to me and you call someone "nice", how do you know my "nice" means the same as your "nice"? and if you don't, how are you communicating anything?
That's not something I can argue against without reference to an alternate logic system ... and I've learned not to do that. (ie. It is what it is because this is what I've defined it to be.) Internally, it's consistent.
I keep asking people to attack anything I come up with in just that way. It's easy to slip from a "very close to 100% certainty" pov to equating it with certainty: at which point suddenly you're no longer debating and examining the argument with the intent of discovering its internal weaknesses and finding out how to resolve them; you've started defending the argument against all comers regardless -- and if hit by something which has the potential to undermine it, it's the attack (and sometimes attacker) that starts getting counterattacked. In fact, I'd suggest that perceiving debate and examination as an attack might be one of the first signs that a held position has slipped from a "very close to 100% certainty" to an a priori tenet of faith. And on that note:
There is no certainty in mathematics. Ask any pure mathematician ;) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 26 2005, 05:29 PM
Post
#229
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
The difference between love and obsession is the focus of the love and the degree of one's own self-certainty. For whom is the true concern? for the loved one's well-being, or for one's own? Even if you have the other's "best interests" at heart, how far are you willing to go to demonstrate that you're the only one who can really know what's best for them? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 26 2005, 06:15 PM
Post
#230
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
I think it's fair to say that everyone who is using this board is operating under this assumption, since without that assumption there isn't much point trying to communicate with each other in words. It is certainly an assumption, but it's not "straw" (in the "I am constructing a straw man" sense) because I am not building up a set of assumptions that the original poster doesn't share so that I can argue against those assumptions instead of the poster's actual statements.
I know this because we have a shared experience of using the English language, and "nice" is a very common English word. Thus, it's very likely that we use "nice" in similar ways. There are, of course, ways to detect when this is not the case (which is why irony works, for example).
The attack goes like this: how do you know how certain you are? How do you know that? How do you know that? How do you know that? How do you know that? (Repeat ad infinitum.) It's quite tricky to get out of this without having to admit at some point that one is completely uncertain, and then having to conclude that one is completely uncertain about everything. I don't think it's impossible, but the same strategy that leads one out of that trap in the case of deciding whether there is a chair in the room also, I believe, leads one out when talking about definitions of evil.
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jul 26 2005, 07:37 PM
Post
#231
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
There's no trap there. One is simply uncertain.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2005, 07:49 PM
Post
#232
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Exactly, Kagatenshi. It's not a personal failing of any kind, not to be absolutely certain about a thing. It's only allowing for the possibility that maybe one doesn't have all the information to know for sure, yet: and acknowledging that maybe that it's not possible to have all the information necessary within this lifetime.
Actually, people who know me would tell you that it's highly unlikely that we'd be using this word in the same way -- pulled it specifically from your examples btw -- and that's basing it upon exactly the same English language definition, but a completely different world understanding. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 27 2005, 12:02 AM
Post
#233
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by this, and how that impacts the scenario I set out. You'll have to be more explicit if you want me to continue the discussion.
I agree that it's not a personal failing, but that doesn't mean that it's trivial to explain in a satisfactory manner why this uncertainty doesn't cascade into complete uncertainty about everything. I think it's explicable, but I've not figured out a way to make it easily explicable.
If you use "nice" in a different way than I do because you think that different things are nice than I do because you have a different understanding of the world than I do, that's fine. To some extent, your usage will let me infer something about your understanding of the world. If your usage departs too drastically from the English language definition, or your experience and motivations are too drastically different from mine, then we may have difficulty communicating. However, I think we're doing a sort-of-okay job communicating so far. At least, had we not shared enough word-meanings, our conversation would have been very unlikely to proceed in this manner (with points and counterpoints, and use of language that is not only valid English, but also related topically).
But my point wasn't to focus on the word "nice". Rather, word-usage is neither a matter of universals nor a matter of personal choice--correct word usage is determined by the utility for transmitting information within a societal context. My point was also that words, used as labels, are always incomplete descriptors of those things they label, and confusion between object and label is rare/minor in most cases (although it can be made severe and common). Therefore, firstly, one cannot simply define evil to mean whatever one wants (e.g. "a characteristic that horrors do not have"), nor does labeling something as "evil" (or anything else) necessitate a response based solely on the basis of that label. That said, to get back to the original point, an overwhelming number of horrors, as presented in ED, possess traits and commit acts that are well-described by the customary definition of evil. Therefore, "Horrors are evil" (to a high but not infinite degree of confidence). |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 27 2005, 12:36 AM
Post
#234
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
It isn't a trap because it's the logical conclusion. I am no more certain of the existence of a chair in the room (or of this discussion, or of my existence or perception) than of anything else. ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 27 2005, 01:25 AM
Post
#235
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
That can't be right. You can't be saying you have the same level of certainty with respect to all propositions, from "I am alive" to "There is (is not) a coherent theory of morality derivable from premises of rationality and the spectrum of human emotion and motivations" to "human activities are responsible for 90% of the measured increase in mean global temperature between 1805 and 2005".
Are you saying you have the same level of certainty with respect to all observations--for example, you're as sure that a chair is in the room as you are that the magician just sawed that woman in half? That doesn't seem right either. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2005, 01:44 AM
Post
#236
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
If I accept a certain basic level of assumption, which I do provisionally to maintain functionality in the world that I think I perceive, then my level of certainty ceases to become identical for all observations. If I don't make such assumptions, I am indeed as sure that a chair is in the room as that the magician just sawed the woman in half.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2005, 02:37 AM
Post
#237
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398 |
PIE!
Why? Because this thread can't go any further off topic. :P |
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2005, 02:42 AM
Post
#238
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Are you certain that this thread is off-topic?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2005, 03:00 AM
Post
#239
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2005, 04:59 AM
Post
#240
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
Considering the topic of the thread is whether or not Horrors, Cycles of Magic and IEs will still exist in SR4, I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that this thread has gone off topic.
Take THAT pseudo-philosophical discussion on certanties! |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 01:01 AM
Post
#241
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
Absolute good, absolute evil, tough things to debate.
Relative good and relative evil, far easier. Do the Horrors want to tuck us up in bed with a nice warm cup of cocoa and a comforting goodnight hug? Mmm... no, not that I know of. Or do they want to make us feel extremes of negative emotions so that they can feed off of said emotions? Seems that way. That being the case, then - whatever mitigating circumstances (it's necessary for their survival, whatever) there may be - from the point of view of the people of the Shadowrun Universe the Horrors are evil. That usually means that from the point of view of shadowrunners, the Horrors are evil. Runners who find themselves in conflict with Horrors will, therefore, by definition be perceived by themselves and others as good within the context of that struggle. Whether this band of potentially amoral mercenaries are "good" in any kind of absolute sense becomes irrelevant; as the opponents of a perceived "evil", they become good by default. Of course, it is possible that through such an event individuals may actually come to exhibit personal change that brings them closer to a more generalised perception of "good", and "redemptive heroism" is a fairly well-used literary technique (random plug - David Gemmell's "Knights of Dark Renown" illustrates the point fairly well). |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 10:08 PM
Post
#242
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Relative definition accepted, within relative context. However:
From the point of view of the deer, wolves are evil: but without the wolf (and other predators) to keep them in check, the deer will reproduce themselves into starvation. From the point of view of a lethal virus, anything less than perfect propagation and cultures into which to spread might be evil -- yet such a perfect spread would equally doom the virus. Shifting slightly: from the point of view of the child being punished for a misdeed, the parents are evil. (One suspects and hopes, though, that -- probably unlike Horrors -- the parents do have the child's welfare in mind during the punishing.) And one again: "its ok to eat the Irish, its not like they are people" :D (particularly ironically appropriate on this day, per the news). |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 10:32 PM
Post
#243
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
Ahem. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 29 2005, 11:29 PM
Post
#244
|
|
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
I first read "amen". :D Made me a bit suspicious of you for a moment, AH.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 11:31 PM
Post
#245
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
I'm part Irish, y'know. I have relatives. They cook better when they're drunk and I wouldn't trust 'em with the cooking whisky, but that doesnae mean ye can say they're not people.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 11:40 PM
Post
#246
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Was the original mention back on p.8 plus contextual explanation and Jonathon Swift link on p.9 a part of the thread you glossed over, AH? I believe he may have been "part" Irish too.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 12:00 AM
Post
#247
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
You be quiet. I'm arguing with the other one right now. :talker:
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 12:07 AM
Post
#248
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
And it was so.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 02:07 AM
Post
#249
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
I think you're underestimating guilt and attachment, being so liberal with the word "evil" as to render its meaning indistiguishable from any other pejorative ("bad", "mean", "harsh", etc.), and/or taking a hypothetical view that is short-sighted even for a typical child.
Perhaps a myopically sociopathic child would think their parents were evil; there's also some small chance that a relatively normal child would recognize it if they had parents widely regarded as evil. I do not think punished children typically regard their parents as evil, however; despite disliking the punishment, they can nonetheless distinguish between their parents' behavor and "evil" behavior (or pretend to due to emotional attachment even if there is, sadly, no difference). However, since we're off topic I'll stop there. (With only the statement that I consider the other examples almost as bad.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 30 2005, 07:40 AM
Post
#250
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
A sociopathic child would not recognize parents as evil—indeed, insensitivity to punishment is one of the defining characteristics of sociopathy.
~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th August 2025 - 04:35 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.