NationStates Jolt Archive

If you think otherwise, ask yourself why good as well as bad people are swept away in natural disasters. There's no justice in a good person being randomly destroyed by something beyond their control. No mercy there either.

This is actually only a problem for worldviews that include a deity. If there is none, then why do we need a reason? Nature is nature. Nature is not just. That has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the ideal of justice, which is about how humans should act and what we should pursue, not a statement about how the world is.

If He doesn't exist then the gears of the Universe grind on whether we want them to or not--there isn't a thing we can do to alter natural law and things are going to happen that aren't fair and don't make sense.

That's right. The world is imperfect. So?

Or is it that you DO believe that what I said Santa Claus personifies and represents is a lie -- that there is no such thing as fellow feeling, good will, or an urge to facilitate the happiness of others that human beings may encounter in the natural world, in their real dealings with other people?

How exactly does that have anything to do with what I said... at all?

My reply was explicitly directed at this:

"You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged."

The point is that the implication of the first part--that in reality there is no such "atom of justice" or "molecule of mercy"--has nothing whatsoever to do with the second part, about an "ideal order" or "some rightness" by which the universe may be judged. Justice qua ideal, justice qua standard, is not an empirical statement about the universe.

This is actually only a problem for worldviews that include a deity. If there is none, then why do we need a reason? Nature is nature. Nature is not just. That has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the ideal of justice, which is about how humans should act and what we should pursue, not a statement about how the world is.



That's right. The world is imperfect. So?



How exactly does that have anything to do with what I said... at all?

My reply was explicitly directed at this:

"You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged."

The point is that the implication of the first part--that in reality there is no such "atom of justice" or "molecule of mercy"--has nothing whatsoever to do with the second part, about an "ideal order" or "some rightness" by which the universe may be judged. Justice qua ideal, justice qua standard, is not an empirical statement about the universe.
Your post, in the context of the overall conversation including the specific thing you were responding to, created the impression that you think that, if a thing cannot be measured empirically, then it does not exist and, therefore, qualifies as a "myth" or "lie" and should not be valued as highly as things that can be measured empirically. So my question stands. Do you or do you not think there is such a thing as "justice" or "mercy" or "caring" and are such things lies or truth in your opinion?

Your post, in the context of the overall conversation including the specific thing you were responding to, created the impression that you think that, if a thing cannot be measured empirically, then it does not exist and, therefore, qualifies as a "myth" or "lie" and should not be valued as highly as things that can be measured empirically.

I have no idea at all how you got that "impression", but okay.

Do you or do you not think there is such a thing as "justice" or "mercy" or "caring" and are such things lies or truth in your opinion?

There are such things; thus, they are true.

(There is, however, no Santa Claus.)

I have no idea at all how you got that "impression", but okay.



There are such things; thus, they are true.

(There is, however, no Santa Claus.)
Okay. Now, in what sense is there no Santa Claus? Please keep in mind the context of this thread and the arguments regarding Santa Claus that have been presented so far.

Okay. Now, in what sense is there no Santa Claus?

There is not actually a man who travels from house to house leaving presents for good children and coal for "naughty" ones. Whether there is any truth to the ideas the tale may be thought to represent is a different question.

Of course, there is also a difference between teaching something as myth that has "deeper" truth to it and teaching something as literal truth: when you get to the point of children actually writing letters to Santa Claus as a real being who can get them what they want, I would say that we have passed the point of a "truthful"/educational lie to simple unvarnished lying. (We do, of course, have a wide variety of educational tales we tell children that we do not pretend are literally true: a great number of children's books, as well as the ancient practice of telling fables, fall into this category.)

Some NSG posters (You, Neesike, LG, VKZ, and many, many others.) make me afraid of getting older. o_0; /irrationality

Anyways...I really only wanted to say that. :D

Mauryvets is one of the posters on NSG I wish I could meet in person at least once, and I just wanted to say that.

There is not actually a man who travels from house to house leaving presents for good children and coal for "naughty" ones. Whether there is any truth to the ideas the tale may be thought to represent is a different question.

Of course, there is also a difference between teaching something as myth that has "deeper" truth to it and teaching something as literal truth: when you get to the point of children actually writing letters to Santa Claus as a real being who can get them what they want, I would say that we have passed the point of a "truthful"/educational lie to simple unvarnished lying. (We do, of course, have a wide variety of educational tales we tell children that we do not pretend are literally true: a great number of children's books, as well as the ancient practice of telling fables, fall into this category.)
Okay, so we have established then that the story of Santa Claus is not a "lie", but rather a fiction -- as in fairy tale or myth. Correct? So that when someone tells a child the Santa story they are not automatically lying.

Now -- let's take a look at the part about children writing letters to Santa or putting out cookies for Santa, etc, and parents facilitating that. Do you draw any distinction between adults lying to children and adults engaging in make believe with children?

Mauryvets is one of the posters on NSG I wish I could meet in person at least once, and I just wanted to say that.
So sweet. :fluffle:

But how do you know you haven't met me?

There are such things; thus, they are true.
There are? Where?

This is really then about shoudl we lie to our children? Yes we should sometimes you need to to, sometimes, you have to , and sometimes, you want to, to let them have their childhood fun.

when asked about santa i said that everyone believes in santa at christmas and that people who dont believe in santa dont get presents from santa. that seemed to take care of the issue of the existence of santa pretty well.

My mother did something similar. She said something along the lines of "Santa is real for people who believe in him."

Of course, this was because she didn't want to flat-out say no, since I was one of the oldest kids in the family and she didn't want me to stop believing and then tell all the younger kids yet.

Well, of course, I would never behave like such an idiot around a kid. But, if someone is going on and on about something they want, like a toy or a Porsche (depending on how old the person is), and I say something like, "Well, maybe Santa will get it for you someday," an adult would know I was speaking figuratively and that what I really meant was "I get it, you want it, shut up now." However, a child who "knows about Santa" is likely to inform me that there is no such person, and do so in that particular condescending tone children get when they think they know something the adult doesn't. This is because they lack the life experience to (a) recognize figurative speech and (b) know when not to speak at all.

Just a thought (and I know this is near the beginning of the thread, so forgive me if this has already been said): you're right that such a child would likely take the comment very differently from an adult who heard the same comment.

However, I don't know if that's necessarily a matter of them lacking life experience. It may be just the opposite. Adults often say such things expecting a child to believe them - and being rather miffed if the child doesn't. Depending on where you are, there could be all sorts of little myths that children are actually expected to believe - such as the idea that babies are actually brought by storks. A child who has experienced this may think that they're being talked down to.