366 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

Except there are potential negatives for the perpetrator, such as being arrested. So no, not objectively good. 

 

What if the perpetrator also wants to be arrested? 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I disagree, "Red" is the name we've assigned to the response to our "Eyes" intercepting and processing a specifically reflected portion of light.

Doesn't matter what the title is. What the name represents is something that objectively exists. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What if the perpetrator also wants to be arrested? 

Then there is the potential they won't be. 

[KainD]

Then there is the potential they won't be. 

 

And if they don't care either way? 

[Periculo]

I never said that "Everything is okay based on point of view", in fact quite the opposite. "Okay" in your context still implies intrinsic morality, which is specifically what I'm refuting. Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat?

[KainD]

So explain to me how rape isn't objectively evil 

 

This can actually be refuted just by the fact that people exist that will say that it's not evil. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I never said that "Everything is okay based on point of view", in fact quite the opposite. "Okay" in your context still implies intrinsic morality, which is specifically what I'm refuting. Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat?

You said there is nothing that is objectively good or bad, thus everything is free game with no morality involved at all. 

 

Yes, I've heard of Schrodinger's Cat. It's pretty much the most famous example of a paradox. 

[KainD]

You said there is nothing that is objectively good or bad, thus everything is free game with no morality involved at all. 

 

You just have to understand that there are people that don't have morals, and for them there is no right and wrong. People are different like that, some have morals, some don't. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

This can actually be refuted just by the fact that people exist that will say that it's not evil. 

Not really, since people cannot percieve ANYTHING objectively.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You just have to understand that there are people that don't have morals, and for them there is no right and wrong. People are different like that, some have morals, some don't. 

There are creatures without eyes. Doesn't mean visible radiation does not objectively exist. 

[Periculo]

Not really, since people cannot percieve ANYTHING objectively.

 

Give the man a cookie! Nothing can be observed objectively, thus no truth derived of observation can be objective.

[Periculo]

There are creatures without eyes. Doesn't mean visible radiation does not objectively exist. 

 

Prove it objectively.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Prove it objectively.

Plant life survives off it through photosynthesis. 

[KainD]

Not really, since people cannot percieve ANYTHING objectively.

 

Too deep, you can't talk about anything and make sense on that level.

[KainD]

There are creatures without eyes. Doesn't mean visible radiation does not objectively exist. 

 

Morals are made up by people. They vary and change, it's not a physical phenomenon. Morals don't exist in nature. 

[Periculo]

Plant life survives off it through photosynthesis. 

 

And the proof you have of that is a series of synaptic discharges in a lump of fatty tissue encased in a shell of bone and flesh.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And the proof you have of that is a series of synaptic discharges in a lump of fatty tissue encased in a shell of bone and flesh.

So you're literally trying to argue that even the universe's laws don't objectively exist but are just a subjective perception in our minds? 

[Periculo]

So you're literally trying to argue that even the universe's laws don't objectively exist but are just a subjective perception in our minds? 

 

Reality itself is subjective.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Give the man a cookie! Nothing can be observed objectively, thus no truth derived of observation can be objective.

That being said. Just because we cannot comprehend or percieve it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

[KainD]

So you're literally trying to argue that even the universe's laws don't objectively exist but are just a subjective perception in our minds? 

 

Well that is true, because everything exist in our minds. If you have schizophrenia for example, some things exist in your mind that others can't see, now if every single person around had the same schizophrenia, it would be an objective truth and no one would know any better. But the realization of this doesn't really influence the daily life and is not a very useful realization, as opposed to understanding for example how morality works.  

[EmperorSahlertz]

Reality itself is subjective.

Perception of reality may be relative, but existance is absolute.

[Periculo]

Perception of reality may be relative, but existance is absolute.

 

 

Arguably, seeing as it is technically impossible to either confirm or deny existence without perceiving it.

[KainD]

Perception of reality may be relative, but existance is absolute.

 

True.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Arguably, seeing as it is technically impossible to either confirm or deny existence without perceiving it.

Not true. There is a way to see if existence is objectively real: end your existence.

If you do something that would make you cease to exist and nothing happens, then existence is a subjective illusion since you broke it's laws, and if you do cease to exist then it is proof existence is objectively real. 

[Periculo]

For all intents and purposes, there is no way to confirm or deny this entire "universe" being the figment of another's subconscious.

 

Before we deviate any further from old Tevinter, (and partially because existential debates never end, it is virtually impossible to change someone else's perception of reality)

 

I'm a huge fan of the Greco-Roman-Byzantine arc, and given the massive amount of history available for inspiration, if/when BW broaches the region, I imagine it will not fail to impress. Don't see it happening in DA:I though.