matmos
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,714
- MBTI Type
- NICE
We're starting from different assumptions.
What assumption would that be?
We're starting from different assumptions.
Thank you, but I had no plans to edit it. I was serious. I meant what I said.
What assumption would that be?
I quoted your post because it was obnoxious and ridiculous-- not because I liked it.
We're all hypocrites.
Good questions. Let's start with the science and move into the parallels after...
"white is the combination of all the colors of the visible light spectrum. If all the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum give the appearance of white, then none of the wavelengths would lead to the appearance of black. Once more, black is not actually a color. Technically speaking, black is merely the absence of the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. "
-The Electromagnetic and Visible Spectra
When you look up into the sky at night, most of what you see is space. When people hear the word space they often think about being in an environment like my astronaut avatar. If you think about it, what is space? It is literally just that, space in it's purest form. If someone tried to give me a free couch, I'd have to tell them I couldn't take it because I don't have enough floor space--I don't have enough nothing to add something. Technically, this isn't pure space, because it is occupied by atmospheric gases, which are also something. This is why space is considered a vacuum (compared to our pressurized atmosphere) because molecules naturally disperse from an area of high density to little or no density.
Oh well, it was probably covered with mystery stains and smelled like stale Doritos. Anyways, if space is absolute nothingness, then the vast black night sky is mostly nothing. It looks like it could be something, because we can replicate the color black on an object or paper and still touch and feel it. Considering all of this, does it make sense to refer to darkness as something rather than nothing? Does it make sense to say you are observing darkness rather than an absence of light? Similarly, we must define other things in relation to what is rather than what it is not. 1+1=2. It would take me an eternity to tell you every number 1+1 does not equal. Once we recognize that there is only a single right answer to any question then we can begin to classify everything else in relation to that.
"But Circle, haven't you heard there is more than one way to skin a cat?" Yes, there is more than one way of accomplishing something, but that is like saying there is more than one answers that are "pretty close" to a complex math problem. You can find the right answer through trying other answers that are wrong, but to seek wrong answers on purpose will in no way help you reach the right one any faster.
Dark and light do not "balance" each other out. There is what is [right, true, good] and what is not. What is cannot equal what is not, 1=/=0. Balance is only obtained through equal amounts of what exists. Also, I think the belief that we are in a state of universal balance or will ever reach one is the greatest assumption of all.
You're a hypocrite for calling us hypocrites you hypocrite.
Why are we making presumptions that there are such things as pure objective evil and pure objective good?
Just on a side note- I have speculated that the concept of "evil" is derived from the fear of the unfamiliar, while the concept of "good" is derived from the comfort of the known. At least on a personal subjective level.
Another theory is that "evil" is defined by the cons of a decisions outweighing the pros, while good is defined by the converse.
In the scope of societal behavior, it would seem that anything that is beneficial to the common welfare of civilization is labeled as "good". On the other hand, anything that is selfish or harmful to society is labeled as "evil".
It is not equatable to compare the good-evil spectrum to the light-dark spectrum; for good and evil reflect the substance of humane choice, while light and dark are irrelevant to anything of the sort.
People tend to have a public face and a private face. The public face serves as a barrier -- to keep the predictable in and the unpredictable out. Evil is the product of the public face going from independent to parasitic.
Well, your assumption is that all bullshit is self-evident...
I mean, I will admit that you might just be smarter than me so it's always obvious to you. But it's not always obvious to everyone.
This whole thread is rhetorical. I'm ranting. I'm being a little bitch. Like or hate it, I could care less.
Well, I was replying to an obnoxious and ridiculous post.
So was I. Yours.
You're missing my point.
We mean well and we say the right things,
but in the end, a lot of people are in it for themselves. Which is where the basis for this whole problem lays.
Oh!
Well, I missed that. I thought you were serious.
Never mind, then.
We're all in it for ourselves.
For instance: You may preach to others about morality because you genuinely care about others' well-being. However, YOU are the one who cares. Caring for others gives you comfort. Thus, you are fulfilling your own selfish desires by being selfless.
Life is a rat race, no matter what angle you look at it from.
We're all hypocrites.
Hence why I said "We're all hypocrites."
I'm not in denial. And I'm not excluding myself.
Thus, you are fulfilling your own selfish desires by being selfless.
I know. I was just retorting for my own shits and giggles.
I am serious. In a way..
This whole thread is completely serious.
But it's alright, I guess I didn't consider the fact that people may take it different ways. Sorry if I was mean, too, I feel bad for grumpin' around.
Perhaps it is because we are the wimpiest of the apes and cannot survive independently. We have no fur, claws, fangs, our skin is thin and easily given to rashes, and our muscles are only a fraction as strong as our cousins even in the most powerful of our kind. Because of this human beings have an insecurity that resonates at their core and so their outlook is primarily defensive and over-reactive.