Hunger Games
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2018, 07:19 PM
RE: Hunger Games
Julep, I actually liked Till We Have Faces. Of course, I was still religious back then. Also, struggling with (accepting) the way I look (done struggling now, am resigned Rolleyes ) so it kinda hit a bit too close to home. especially the ugly part (way more than the religiosity at the end, was a bit too much even for me, even back then).

But yeah, Narnia is not horrible, just unabashedly mediocre.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2018, 09:00 AM
RE: Hunger Games
(05-02-2018 01:39 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Any philosophical assessment involving suffering has to keep in mind what suffering is: a neurological imposition of discomfort when the senses perceive stimuli beyond normal frequency/intensity, discomfort to drive the organism to change things until the sensory stimuli fall back to normal levels.
That explains physical suffering but not existential suffering, grief, loss, and the like.

I accept your premise that to the elimination of all suffering is unrealistic. That suffering / non-suffering is basically a differential from some baseline. But I conceptualize it as a continuum, like this:

Abject misery <== neutral ==> Utter bliss

If society could somehow magically, once-and-for-all, transform this to:

Neutral <====> Utter bliss

... there's still be plenty of contrast to experience differences in states. I simply maintain that the stuff to the left of neutral is not necessary to appreciate pleasure and happiness, as some claim when trying to rationalize human suffering as "necessary" to appreciate joy and/or to "develop character".

So I see society's Job One as to eliminate everything "left of neutral" that it can without misplaced concerns of creating immaturity, indolence, or anything else negative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2018, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2018 09:10 AM by mordant.)
RE: Hunger Games
(05-02-2018 08:11 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  This gets increasingly creepy the more you prod the apologist as to why free will is so important. The usual answer is something along the lines of "God wants to know who his true friends are", "God doesn't want robot friends", and possibly "DO YOU WANT TO BE A ROBOT!?". Still, it never really answers the question, because now we're stuck wondering why we're allowed to actually make those decisions (and act on them!) all to appease God's sense of friendship.
Another thing I can never get them to explain is how being in heaven forever worshipping god is somehow not "being a robot" and not problem in that setting, but it's a horrible problem in THIS life. Why god can "wipe away every tear" in the Great Beyond but can't manage that parlor trick in the here and now.

They never have a coherent answer for that one. It aways comes back to some version of this life being a training-ground that "matures" us and makes us somehow more fit for a heaven that, according to their other doctrines, we couldn't be MORE fit for because of the grace of god anyway. And even if that made sense, it would not address the question. Why robot bad now, good then? Clearly in heaven you can't sin or cause suffering if you tried. Why is that suddenly not a problem in the hereafter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2018, 09:07 AM
RE: Hunger Games
duplicate
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2018, 07:29 AM
RE: Hunger Games
(11-02-2018 09:06 AM)mordant Wrote:  Another thing I can never get them to explain is how being in heaven forever worshipping god is somehow not "being a robot" and not problem in that setting, but it's a horrible problem in THIS life. Why god can "wipe away every tear" in the Great Beyond but can't manage that parlor trick in the here and now.

They never have a coherent answer for that one. It aways comes back to some version of this life being a training-ground that "matures" us and makes us somehow more fit for a heaven that, according to their other doctrines, we couldn't be MORE fit for because of the grace of god anyway. And even if that made sense, it would not address the question. Why robot bad now, good then? Clearly in heaven you can't sin or cause suffering if you tried. Why is that suddenly not a problem in the hereafter?

Yeah, every conversation I've had about that is chock full of Orwellian double-speak about free will. It goes something like:
  • You need free will to make the right choices to get into heaven (ignore the grace vs works crap, here).
  • Once you're in heaven, everything is great and there's no suffering.
  • Since there can't be any suffering in heaven, people cannot do bad things.
  • But they just infinitely choose to be good, without faltering, for infinity years. Everyone does this. Never an exception.
  • This means that there is a 0% chance anyone will choose to do something bad. Because if that number is anything above zero (even 0.0000000000000000000001%), it means someone would, on an infinite time line.
  • So I'll ask if they tautologically can't take the bad decision, is it even "choice"?
  • They'll say "yes", it still is.
  • Then I'll ask "why don't we just all do that on Earth, then? If that's good enough to count as 'free will', why are all the rapes and murders necessary?"
They cannot kick the can far enough to avoid this fundamental question. All they can do is become disingenuous to the point that I want to stop talking to them, and they probably tell themselves they "won" the debate as soon as I get sick of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: