A bit ago I asked the question:
Is it possible to validate good acts and the will to do good through syllogistic reasoning?
Now I postulate that EITHER it is possible OR Charles Manson was neither better nor worse than Mother Teresa.
So which is it or if you think it is neither, WHY?
2007-01-04 13:14:01 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think your thought patterns reflect those of a negative,typical role reversal of an orthodox Freudian ! You can justify anything !
2007-01-04 13:18:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Learning the syllogistic rules is the right direction for validation for reasoning; breaking the circular reasoning cycle that puts the belief as the supporting reason for itself, an impossibility for a person who identifies self contradiction, but possible for the evil self. What remains is the question 'what is sufficient induction for right action when our knowledge is finite in measure, but having not specificity for the non-existent knowledge in self?'. I know things, but do I know ALL the things I need to know for perfectly right action and choice, for right Judgment and from that, right execution for the Will. The Judgment is negative, the Will is positive.
2007-01-04 21:46:45 · answer #2 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was no better or worse than Mother Tereasa.
Killing is wrong.
The lion kills.
The lion is wrong.
I believe your logic needs a little fine tuning. What is wrong for one may not be wrong for another.
2007-01-04 22:25:07 · answer #3 · answered by felixtricks 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it truly matters on where you stand on the lot of those topics. The answer could go any way with those terms.
2007-01-04 22:33:44 · answer #4 · answered by Answerer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋