Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:No! No! No! Don't you dare thank me.

You're welcome?

Lacewing wrote: Where did I imply it was bad, IC? How do you come to the conclusions you come to?

Well, you had to mean it was either "good" or "bad." It if was simply "unremarkable," you'd never have remarked on it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Where did I imply it was bad, IC? How do you come to the conclusions you come to?

Well, you had to mean it was either "good" or "bad."

And there you have it: other than god's wishes, there is no "good" or "bad", according to Mr Can.

Immanuel Can wrote: You're welcome

Well I'm just going to have to try harder then, aren't I?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Where did I imply it was bad, IC? How do you come to the conclusions you come to?

Well, you had to mean it was either "good" or "bad."

Why do you think that?

Immanuel Can wrote:It if was simply "unremarkable," you'd never have remarked on it.

What does "remarkable" have to do with "good" or "bad"?

Harbal wrote:[
Well I'm just going to have to try harder then, aren't I?

Thank you for all your extra effort.

Lacewing wrote:What does "remarkable" have to do with "good" or "bad"?

Neutrality doesn't bear mentioning.

But hey, why do we linger in doubt? Why don't you tell me why you bothered to remark on it? Then we'll both know.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thank you for all your extra effort.

You keep winking at me. Are you gay? Or are you just an obsessive winker?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lacewing wrote:What does "remarkable" have to do with "good" or "bad"?

Neutrality doesn't bear mentioning.

But hey, why do we linger in doubt? Why don't you tell me why you bothered to remark on it? Then we'll both know.

Because I'm not governed by the reality that you apparently are... so I can notice things and comment on them without holding a judgment as to whether they're good or bad. I wanted to know why you seem intent/fixated/obsessed (neither good or bad) with trying to label and judge individual values and morals based solely on belief or lack of it. How did you come to think that belief is so irrefutably accurate and all-knowing? And why might you think you know the values and morals of other people better than they know for themselves?

Lacewing wrote:I'm not governed by the reality that you apparently are... so I can notice things and comment on them without holding a judgment as to whether they're good or bad.

I suppose, then, it's not good or bad whether I answer.

That works.

Harbal wrote:Or are you just an obsessive winker?

Yes, that's it.

Immanuel Can wrote:Why don't you tell me why you bothered to remark on it?

Lacewing wrote:I'm not governed by the reality that you apparently are... so I can notice things and comment on them without holding a judgment as to whether they're good or bad. I wanted to know why you seem intent/fixated/obsessed (neither good or bad) with trying to label and judge individual values and morals based solely on belief or lack of it? How did you come to think that belief is so irrefutably accurate and all-knowing? And why might you think you know the values and morals of other people better than they know for themselves?

Immanuel Can wrote:I suppose, then, it's not good or bad whether I answer.

That works.

I can understand your resistance to self-examination, as it doesn't appear to hold up honestly under questioning. Not sure why you're here then... unless it's just to strut about.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote:Or are you just an obsessive winker?

Yes, that's it.

Looks like my intuition is a bit off, I suspected option one.

Harbal wrote:Looks like my intuition is a bit off, I suspected option one.

Really? I always had him down as a winker.

uwot wrote:

Harbal wrote:Looks like my intuition is a bit off, I suspected option one.

Really? I always had him down as a winker.

He strikes me as being a man with many strings to his bow, he could well be both and more besides.