|
| Thread: The strong and the weak |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 22, 2008 08:24 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 08:43 PM |
|
|
Then you can't be considered "strong" in that approach at all...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 02:01 AM |
|
|
|
It seems like there are far more interesting things than just physical strength. What about emotional strength, will power, moral strength or just plain old stubborn-ness?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 02:05 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Indeed. But we have strayed off-topic.
Nocaplato:
In the context of this thread, those qualify as "strength" too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 02:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I beg to differ. I am here as an individual (and so is everyone else, unless they're schizophrenic ). And I'd like you to point me to gain that isn't materialistic.
No offense, but if you cannot think of examples of unmaterialistic gain, I consider you a basic example of how corruptive and deforming the idea of materialism can be.
Quote:
The strong carrying the weak is sometimes mutualism, sometimes commensalism, and sometimes parasitism. But when the strong are forced to carry the weak, then it is parasitism.
So, if according to you there is only MATERIALISTIC gain possible, do tell me then, what possible reason could the strong have to carry the weak?
Your ideas are starting to drift into the direction of fascism.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 02:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No offense, but if you cannot think of examples of unmaterialistic gain, I consider you a basic example of how corruptive and deforming the idea of materialism can be.
Of course, that depends on how we define materialism. Too often, materialism is used to mean "extreme consumerism", where happiness can only come from buying stuff. But that's not the meaning that I'm using. Of course I'm not a materialist in that sense. I'm using the definition of materialism that says that nothing exists except for matter. In that sense, I am a materialist.
As an atheist, wouldn't you agree?
So according to the second definition of materialism, love, friendship, and peace are also materialistic gain.
Quote:
So, if according to you there is only MATERIALISTIC gain possible, do tell me then, what possible reason could the strong have to carry the weak?
To carry? Perhaps they could derive emotional benefits from it. But they may help the weak without carrying them, because it may benefit them.
And Fascism isn't exactly about the strong and the weak. Fascism is about one strong person, a whole bunch of scared or weak-minded people, and physically weak people. The strong man brainwashes the weak-minded or scares people into obeying, and then tells them to kill somebody else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:23 AM |
|
|
I don't consider love or other emotions to be materialistic 
What I am referring to is conscience mostly. Apparently, some people have it, but most don't. I find this hard to believe.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:55 AM |
|
|
"conscience is but a word that cowards use / Devis'd at first to keep the strong in awe" - Richard III, William Shakespeare
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 04:34 AM |
|
|
Are you seriously quoting a fictional character from a theatrical play to claim that "Conscience" is some sort of poor invention from cowards now?
I do hope you're joking.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 04:44 AM |
|
|
I felt it describes the situation rather aptly. "The fairy tale is a lie, but in it lies a hint."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 10:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
A planet full of supermen will be just the same as a planet full of halflings
Now here I disagree completely. If humans could fly, then I think you would agree that the world would be different than it is now, even though everybody could do it. Even though people can't fly by themselves, we can compare our current world with what it could be like if people could fly. Or if all humans' intelligence were to be halved. Or something else. And so on. Just because a different world doesn't exist doesn't mean that we can't compare ourselves with an idea of what it could be like. So a world full of supermen would be very different from a world full of halflings.
For WHOM will they be different? Answer: for someone who lives in both.
So while I think you are just wrong I don't even see the point you are trying to make.
Quote:
Nevertheless, if the strong just leave the weak alone, and vice versa, then the weak would have no qualms with the strong and would have no right to eliminate them. Likewise, the strong have no obligation to help the weak. However, it may be mutually beneficial for them to interact. The strong may be acting in their own self-interest, but if they don't oppress the weak in doing so, the weak would probably benefit too.
And what if the strong were to withdraw from interacting with the weak and build a society for themselves? What would there be left for the weak to do?
Again, only theory. People are either having a society or they don't. If they have a society there is interaction. If there is interaction there are conflicts. The decisive question is, if there is a conflict of interests - and you can bet there will be - how are things regulated?
I saw that the thread developed into a "materialism" discussion again. I'm going to refrain from discussing this philosophically and why materialism is one of the dumbest ideas ever developed, I'll just say it's obviously wrong:
We know that no amount of matter can be accelerated to light speed due to a slight energy problem involved - which means that light (since it moves with light speed) cannot be "matter", whatever it actually is. So LIGHT is something completely different from MATTER...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For WHOM will they be different? Answer: for someone who lives in both.
Or for one who observes both. The important thing is that they would be different, though.
Quote:
If they have a society there is interaction. If there is interaction there are conflicts.
As for materialism, I meant "matter and energy", not just matter, of course. And, besides, what about e=mc^2?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 05:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If they have a society there is interaction. If there is interaction there are conflicts.
I think he meant that if the two "worlds" interact there will be conflicts -- what was once strong in one is now weak because of the conflict. But if there are no conflicts, then the worlds don't interact -- so an ant can be 'strong' if it lives in a world with nothing stronger. If you compare them, it means they have to interact somehow, and make conflict -- so it won't be strong anymore.
I think, could be wrong tho.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 06:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. What is strength?
The ability to be able to choose between right and wrong and still do the right.
Quote:
2. What is weakness?
The inability to stop doing a wrong knowingly it is wrong
Quote:
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
Depends on the given situation
Quote:
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?
Depends on the given situation
Quote:
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?
No
6. Quote:
Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)
in a metter of speech.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 06:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think he meant that if the two "worlds" interact there will be conflicts -- what was once strong in one is now weak because of the conflict.
If so, then the conflict isn't really a conflict.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
For WHOM will they be different? Answer: for someone who lives in both.
Or for one who observes both. The important thing is that they would be different, though.
No, it will NOT be different because nobody is there who can observe it. It's just speculation. Everything will be as it is.
Quote:
Quote:
If they have a society there is interaction. If there is interaction there are conflicts.
What is there not to understand? If there is a society it means that people are not just living without any contact. They will be living in settlements, for examples. In that case there will be conflicts. Take the "land"? Can you "own" land? Who decides about that? No matter what, who decides what happens on collectively owned land? And so on. There will always be different opinions in a society and a way must be found to some to decisions for things that have consequences for all.
Quote:
As for materialism, I meant "matter and energy", not just matter, of course. And, besides, what about e=mc^2?
Well, what IS matter, and what IS energy then?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it will NOT be different because nobody is there who can observe it. It's just speculation. Everything will be as it is.
Yes, but we can compare ourselves to our predictions and speculations.
Quote:
They will be living in settlements, for examples. In that case there will be conflicts. Take the "land"? Can you "own" land? Who decides about that?
Society as a whole does based on how it would be best in general.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, it will NOT be different because nobody is there who can observe it. It's just speculation. Everything will be as it is.
Yes, but we can compare ourselves to our predictions and speculations.
Didn't you say you were a materialist? "Predictions?" "Speculations"? Why not dreams then? What point are you trying to make?
By the way, you didn't answer what matter and energy are supposed to be?
Quote:
Quote:
They will be living in settlements, for examples. In that case there will be conflicts. Take the "land"? Can you "own" land? Who decides about that?
Society as a whole does based on how it would be best in general.
Don't make me laugh. Best for whom?
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Society as a whole does based on how it would be best in general.
Sorry for butting in ,but this is not entirely true because of the fallowing:
1.'Society' is something i wished redefined please.
2.Who exctally does lead it,and why ask yourself. For my analysis I will compere it with a Herd of sheep's and a Shepard. I'm the Shepard,you are my herd. Who's favor does the Herd Serves?
3.History shows us that Humans are greedy,hypocritical,idiot,easy to corrupt and downright weak. Most leaders,especially nowadays ended up lowering the standard's of the so called 'Society'. Practically now its every man for himself. This why There are more independent thinkers now,then ever.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Didn't you say you were a materialist? "Predictions?" "Speculations"? Why not dreams then? What point are you trying to make?
The point is that we know that things could be better and that things could be worse. And we can thus compare ourselves to them.
Quote:
By the way, you didn't answer what matter and energy are supposed to be?
matter - the common definition is "anything that has mass and takes up space". Of course, there are more in-depth definitions.
energy - the ability to do work or to cause change.
Quote:
Don't make me laugh. Best for whom?
Best for each individual.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
