Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#110391 - 11/19/16 01:24 PM Re: Conscience [Re: Czereda]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3246
[Quick Reply]

 Originally Posted By: N913
When one is centered and motivated by that numinous insight, there is no difference between honor and duty. The character is born of that duty, and the duty born of that character.

Only subjectively so.
People can be programmed. There's always a choice. The mind is flexible and can easily be deceived. Honour(ing) is always a personal choice. Duty is uncircumventable.

 Originally Posted By: N913
Comparing "A" to "B" is nonsensical because moving the goal post does nothing to fulfill the requirement for evidence pertaining to your assessment of "A". If you would assess"A" according to "B", would you then assess "B" according to "C", and "C" according to "D" ad nauseam? Your comparative logic fails because its basically a infinite regress in a "reason costume".

It does allow for gaining insights. Or, to put it in plain English, "getting the point across".
The regression implies for a well-stated argument. It helps for credibility.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110394 - 11/19/16 02:21 PM Re: Conscience [Re: Dimitri]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: N913
When one is centered and motivated by that numinous insight, there is no difference between honor and duty. The character is born of that duty, and the duty born of that character.
Only subjectively so. People can be programmed. There's always a choice. The mind is flexible and can easily be deceived. Honour(ing) is always a personal choice. Duty is uncircumventable.

I am addressing something objective, and yes, you have been programmed. Isn't it interesting how everyone believes themselves to be free of programming, yet thinks everyone else is programmed? Let us move on then, to addressing the programming itself. Honor is a personal choice, as is duty. If you believe duty to be something objective, or "uncircumventable", you will need to make an actual case for that position. In keeping with your character, and that of Antikarmatomic, I seriously doubt that a proper argument will be offered, and fully expect that you will simply assert your claim relentlessly, as though such were meaningful. Prove me wrong.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: N913
Comparing "A" to "B" is nonsensical because moving the goal post does nothing to fulfill the requirement for evidence pertaining to your assessment of "A". If you would assess"A" according to "B", would you then assess "B" according to "C", and "C" according to "D" ad nauseam? Your comparative logic fails because its basically a infinite regress in a "reason costume".
It does allow for gaining insights. Or, to put it in plain English, "getting the point across". The regression implies for a well-stated argument. It helps for credibility.

Hold on a second! You think the infinite-regress-ness of a position validates the position? Seriously? You are actually stating that one unsubstantiated issue can be substantiated by another unsubstantiated issue, because it too is substantiated by a proceeding unsubstantiated issue, forever, validating all things even though at no point has ANYTHING actually been substantiated? And they let you be a "biologist"? LOL.

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.023 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.