Gautama
Aug 8, 2009
Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]
sorry I've been away so long.
It does serve as a symbol but it can easily be manipulated and for those who don't know that this manipulation has occured it still has value. The government prints money all the time and spends it. The value goes down, yes, but only slowly. If I had a printing press I could print a billion dollars and spend it because that money has value in the people's eyes. Eventually the markets would adjust to compensate for this new billion dollars that appeared out of thin air and the value of money would go down but since I spent the billion I got value out of it therefor the unearned money I created had value for me.
This is simply a non sequitur. Behavior can be irrational and arbitrary and still be predictable. Also you can read people's emotions just by looking at them regardless of their situation.
Emotion's are arbitrary in the sense that they have been arbitrarily assigned for each situation. For instance the average person might get angry everytime he is punched. His response is predictable: he gets punched - he gets angry. It is arbitrary, though, that we would feel anger when we get punched. Why would we be angry about that? Because something bad happened to us? Well why would that anger us? Why does injustice and negativity make us angry? It's arbitrary that anger is assigned to those situations. It is still understandable and thus you can feel empathy.
Same goes for irrationality. You can feel empathy for other people's emotions even though they are irrational. You know what their emotions feel like because you have experienced them yourself. You know what emotion the person is going through because of various verbal and non verbal communication. Empathy is possible.
The pursuit of happiness is irrational. You can't rationalize the reason why you pursue happiness.
Tautology is simply unwarranted or excessive repetition. I asked a question.
That is a misinterpretation. My question is "why seek the desirable?" I already know why you desire things. I know what makes things desirable. I want to know why you act on those desires. It's a different question entirely. And by the way asking a foolish question doesn't warrant a foolish answer it just shows that both parties are fools.
Why is it in your self interest to have empathy? How does that help you at all?
Wouldn't it be better to be able to percieve other people's emotions in an unemotional way?
Show me the quote.
What's your point?
You are avoiding answering the question and you are going off topic. Why are you still talking about communism? I thought we were done with that. What more are you trying to prove on that subject? This is irrelevant to the current conversation.
sorry I've been away so long.
Money is merely a symbol of productive value, and is only as valuable as the productive efforts that produced it.
It does serve as a symbol but it can easily be manipulated and for those who don't know that this manipulation has occured it still has value. The government prints money all the time and spends it. The value goes down, yes, but only slowly. If I had a printing press I could print a billion dollars and spend it because that money has value in the people's eyes. Eventually the markets would adjust to compensate for this new billion dollars that appeared out of thin air and the value of money would go down but since I spent the billion I got value out of it therefor the unearned money I created had value for me.
If this were true, then we would not be capable of empathy, because we would be unable to imagine what irrational and arbitrary emotions someone else might be feeling in any given situation.
This is simply a non sequitur. Behavior can be irrational and arbitrary and still be predictable. Also you can read people's emotions just by looking at them regardless of their situation.
Emotion's are arbitrary in the sense that they have been arbitrarily assigned for each situation. For instance the average person might get angry everytime he is punched. His response is predictable: he gets punched - he gets angry. It is arbitrary, though, that we would feel anger when we get punched. Why would we be angry about that? Because something bad happened to us? Well why would that anger us? Why does injustice and negativity make us angry? It's arbitrary that anger is assigned to those situations. It is still understandable and thus you can feel empathy.
Same goes for irrationality. You can feel empathy for other people's emotions even though they are irrational. You know what their emotions feel like because you have experienced them yourself. You know what emotion the person is going through because of various verbal and non verbal communication. Empathy is possible.
You still haven't explained why it is irrational for an emotional being to pursue happiness.
The pursuit of happiness is irrational. You can't rationalize the reason why you pursue happiness.
It's not so much that its a circular argument as that you are asking me to explain a tautology, which by definition doesn't need explanation.
Tautology is simply unwarranted or excessive repetition. I asked a question.
So your question can be interpreted as "why do I desire that which is desirable?" What answer did you expect except "because it is desirable." Ask a foolish question, and get a foolish answer.
That is a misinterpretation. My question is "why seek the desirable?" I already know why you desire things. I know what makes things desirable. I want to know why you act on those desires. It's a different question entirely. And by the way asking a foolish question doesn't warrant a foolish answer it just shows that both parties are fools.
I do not view feeling guilt as being in my emotional self-interest. I do, however, believe that it is in my self-interest to have empathy, so I would not choose not to be empathetic, even though that would free me from guilt.
Why is it in your self interest to have empathy? How does that help you at all?
Wouldn't it be better to be able to percieve other people's emotions in an unemotional way?
Actually, you did.
Show me the quote.
Given the context of our discussion, you were clearly pushing for the "a billion" answer. So, you were advocating "sacrificing" others (one man) to save others (a billion).
What's your point?
And this is what communism, socialism, and all the "altruistic" economic systems always and forever end up doing: sacrificing some people for the benefit of others. Only it isn't sacrifice, because you can't sacrifice someone else. It's oppression. I believe that it is better to live in a world without oppression than one with it, that it is in fact in my self-interest.
You are avoiding answering the question and you are going off topic. Why are you still talking about communism? I thought we were done with that. What more are you trying to prove on that subject? This is irrelevant to the current conversation.