Except that anticipation of future pleasure may balance or outweigh present pain. When you decide to go to graduate school you take it into consideration, otherwise, if built-in fear of death was not an issue, a heroin addiction followed by quick death would probably constitute a better plan. Took some reasoning to get there, I would bet. Surely it is inherent in pain that it be painful?
Posted on February 23, by Scott Alexander [Content warning: Discussion of social justice, discussion of violence, spoilers for Jacqueline Carey books. This post was inspired by a debate with a friend of a friend on Facebook who has since become somewhat famous.
Andrew Cord criticizes me for my bold and controversial suggestion that maybe people should try to tell slightly fewer blatant hurtful lies: And then complain about losing rather than changing their tactics to match those of people who are winning.
That post [ the one debunking false rape statistics ] is exactly my problem with Scott. It honestly makes me kind of sick.
In other words, if a fight is important to you, fight nasty. If that means lying, lie. If that means insults, insult. If that means silencing people, silence. But in a way, that would be assuming the conclusion.
Then if the stress ends up bursting an aneurysm in his brain, I can dance on his grave, singing: I mean, he thinks that sexism is detrimental to society, so spreading lies and destroying people is justified in order to stop it.
I think that discourse based on mud-slinging and falsehoods is detrimental to society. You know who got things done? Why not assassinate prominent racist and sexist politicians and intellectuals?
Unless you do not believe there will ever be an opportunity to defect unpunished, you need this sort of social contract to take you at least some of the way.
Bullets, as you say, are neutral. In a war, a real war, a war for survival, you use all the weapons in your arsenal because you assume the enemy will use all the weapons in theirs. Because you understand that it IS a war.
There are a lot of things I am tempted to say to this. You can get most of this from Hobbesbut this blog post will be shorter. Suppose I am a radical Catholic who believes all Protestants deserve to die, and therefore go around killing Protestants.
So far, so good.Background Need for demonstration of the existence of God. Aquinas did not think the finite human mind could know what God is directly, therefore God's existence is .
A key question in all this is whether the text in question supports John’s position. John cites the ‘sober German scholar’ Gerd Theissen, who pointed out ‘long ago’ that the word entimos (‘highly prized’) used to describe the value of the servant to the centurion in Luke , would have been understood by any Jew to mean that the slave was the .
Pascal's Wager "Wager, then, without hesitation that He is". Outline an argument that may have led Pascal to this conclusion and critically consider one objection to it/5(1). Pascal’s Wager vs.
the Ontological Argument Pascal’s Wager was a groundbreaking theory posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal.
Pascal, who is said to be the father of modern probability, felt that that religion should be approached as a gamble. Pascal’s Wager, first proposed in the seventeenth century, describes an argument by him trying to convince one to rationally believe in the existence of God.
Pascal’s Wager brings about many controversial discussions through the idea of the existence of God. Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God.
Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time.