This video "clicked" in my head a bit, opened my eyes to things.

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

I don’t have actual idea though what I’m realizing about the whole big picture.

But I explain it as this, but it’s not my words I’m still forming them.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Glad to know you Arch-Vile.

In my view, the problem is not opposing views, but what constitutes the ‘truth’.

In the first video I note that thesis vs anti-thesis are defined as ‘fat’ vs ‘thin’. And by definition the truth must be in-between.
‘Truth’ therefore is a median ground between opposites.
But which of these is ‘good’ or ‘desirable’?
Does ‘truth’ have any relation to ‘good’ at all?

Let me apply the logic above to another system

There is a dictator and his army who believe killing a village full of people is ok.
A mission church working in the area says no killing – ever.
The ‘truth’ in this case would be to kill half the villagers.

It appears there is no common ground between ‘truth’ and what we normally regard as ‘good’ – when applied to actual situations using this method.

Does ‘good’ form part of ‘truth’ or not?
If no – how can you have justice system or in fact any type of system where possibly the decisions based on ‘truth’ allow degrees of violence that we now do not accept?

What do you think?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

I never really bought into the Hegel as anything other than descriptive of a process as opposed to a methodology for uncovering the truth about anything. His notion of synthesis is merely a fancy word for compromise. The problem is that one cannot compromise truth without invalidating it.

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

Y_ wrote:

Glad to know you Arch-Vile.

In my view, the problem is not opposing views, but what constitutes the ‘truth’.

In the first video I note that thesis vs anti-thesis are defined as ‘fat’ vs ‘thin’. And by definition the truth must be in-between.
‘Truth’ therefore is a median ground between opposites.
But which of these is ‘good’ or ‘desirable’?
Does ‘truth’ have any relation to ‘good’ at all?

Let me apply the logic above to another system

There is a dictator and his army who believe killing a village full of people is ok.
A mission church working in the area says no killing – ever.
The ‘truth’ in this case would be to kill half the villagers.

It appears there is no common ground between ‘truth’ and what we normally regard as ‘good’ – when applied to actual situations using this method.

Does ‘good’ form part of ‘truth’ or not?
If no – how can you have justice system or in fact any type of system where possibly the decisions based on ‘truth’ allow degrees of violence that we now do not accept?

What do you think?

It’s chess, Black-White, go for stalemate in that case then.

A is ~A (that’s not A at the last bit there)

What I would do then is nothing.

Walk away from that choice to kill or not to kill.

Taking a life is immoral, but morality is relative to the individual. A line needs to be drawn though…

As above so below,

If it’s about taking life then, what of the taking of all life? If I kill an animal for food am I not taking a life? but then when I wash my hands am I not killing the life of the bacteria that lives on my skin?

Life is Life

A is A

I’m speaking about an individual that has no power over other men. That seeks no control over other men.

But this is coming from a Reasoned faith in something bigger coming into play.

But so is the problem I have what if I accidentally hurt someone, this is what has me so bothered about things. Accidentally and mistakenly hurting someone.

Will I accept Justice dealt to me?

[Y_Participant 4591]

You cannot live in life without rules.
Kiiling is an example but anything else will give you the fallacy of this approach
And you cannot live in full isolation.
You have to deal with the world on its terms my friend

PistolPete is 110% right – it is a fancy word for compromise.

Everything you do affects someone or something,
How far are YOU willing to compromise?
And for what?

The day will come – trust me on this – when you need to walk the walk. So how much are you willing to compromise in what you believe in? 50-50?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

There are absolutes in terms of truth, honor, faith etc. Luckily, I have no family, I’m done with official career, I approaching 60 and dying by inches from a disease—so as a result I’m at liberty to indulge a complete lack of compromise. When you really don’t have much to lose you needn’t ever compromise.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Sorry about your condition PP
Wish you the best my friend.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Thanks man, but it happens to us all sooner or later…and it was my own fault so I can’t blame anyone but me. Nope no moral relativism even now.

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

You will be in my thoughts pete.

Yumbo, I see your point.

[Author]

Posts