endsthegame (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
endsthegame) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2016-08-08 07:04 am
endsthegame) wrote in fandomhigh2016-08-08 07:04 am
Entry tags:
Practical Philosophy, Monday
"It's been a quiet week," Ender said, "But for the market. It's left me thinking about an old class topic: our judgment of others, and what it means."
He took a swig from a bottle of water. "It's the idea of judging people that drove the human philosophers of old into endless debates, on when it was okay to judge something terrible or evil. They developed extensive theories on what made something good and right. Take the old Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle, who believed in what's called 'virtue ethics' - the idea that the character of the person defines the morality of his actions. Socrates argued, for instance, that if a person knew what was right, then he would do right. It was only not knowing what 'good' was that might cause someone to do evil."
"Then there were the stoics, who believed virtue laid in contentment, in being happy with what you're given, whatever it was. Opposite them, the hedonists, who believed 'good' was anything that made you feel happy. Later philosophers came up with the theory of consequentialism, the idea that your morality depends on the consequences of what you does. Some philosophers felt that good deeds were only good if they worked to better the country, for instance. On the other hand, deontologists such as Kant believed that goodness came from doing, and the reasons someone might have to do something. If you were doing something out of duty, for instance, then according to Kant, you were doing some good. 'Nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.' Your intentions are what make you good."
He sat back.
"As I said, we all make our judgments. Of ourselves, of the people around us, of their pasts - especially around here. On what do you base your judgments? I think most of us realize that there is no such thing as pure good and evil - but how we judge other people tends to depend a lot on what we were taught and where we come from."
Another faint smile.
"I personally believe that character is important," he said. "Once you try to understand what makes people do what they do, it becomes that much harder to see them as evil. After all, most of us do what we think is right, even if our ideas of what right is are different. And in doing these things, we inspire other people to act in their own way."
He took a swig from a bottle of water. "It's the idea of judging people that drove the human philosophers of old into endless debates, on when it was okay to judge something terrible or evil. They developed extensive theories on what made something good and right. Take the old Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle, who believed in what's called 'virtue ethics' - the idea that the character of the person defines the morality of his actions. Socrates argued, for instance, that if a person knew what was right, then he would do right. It was only not knowing what 'good' was that might cause someone to do evil."
"Then there were the stoics, who believed virtue laid in contentment, in being happy with what you're given, whatever it was. Opposite them, the hedonists, who believed 'good' was anything that made you feel happy. Later philosophers came up with the theory of consequentialism, the idea that your morality depends on the consequences of what you does. Some philosophers felt that good deeds were only good if they worked to better the country, for instance. On the other hand, deontologists such as Kant believed that goodness came from doing, and the reasons someone might have to do something. If you were doing something out of duty, for instance, then according to Kant, you were doing some good. 'Nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.' Your intentions are what make you good."
He sat back.
"As I said, we all make our judgments. Of ourselves, of the people around us, of their pasts - especially around here. On what do you base your judgments? I think most of us realize that there is no such thing as pure good and evil - but how we judge other people tends to depend a lot on what we were taught and where we come from."
Another faint smile.
"I personally believe that character is important," he said. "Once you try to understand what makes people do what they do, it becomes that much harder to see them as evil. After all, most of us do what we think is right, even if our ideas of what right is are different. And in doing these things, we inspire other people to act in their own way."
Re: Talk.
He sat back. "Well, all things must end," he said. "Even gems, eventually. Is there much of a point in avoiding something that might be good for you, just because it will end?"
RE: Re: Talk.
She cut herself off, then. Sat in stunned silence as though the idea of even saying what she wanted to say as burning at her.
"I've never..."
She was young, by Gem standards. She was new. She hadn't lost anybody before. Not anybody who cared. And the idea of never going back to Homeworld left a burning feeling in her chest that left her short of breath. She didn't love Homeworld, didn't think anybody would even miss her if she never returned. But she knew where she belonged, there. She could at least be proud of her place, her station. Secure in the knowledge that she had a purpose.
The idea of becoming close to anything or anybody and then losing it was terrifying. She wouldn't know what to do.
Re: Talk.
"You've never...?" he prompted gently. "It's okay, Peridot."
Re: Talk.
"I've never lost anything but Homeworld before," she said, quietly. "I've never... had anybody in my life... who mattered enough... that I didn't want to lose them."
And that on its own was a little too much like peeling open her emotions to bare to the world at large, so she was going to just clam up again.
Re: Talk.
"You will," he said, and sat up a little more. "Would you like a hug, or to be left alone?"
He wouldn't judge her for any of those choices, or any other.
RE: Re: Talk.
... Homeworld was also not terribly touchy-feely.
Re: Talk.
RE: Re: Talk.
She settled on, "You're offering me friendship?"
Re: Talk.
He'd have to remember to give Peridot his multiversal number, later.
RE: Re: Talk.
"Then yes, I would like one of these... hugs." A beat. "Please."
The best way to know was to do, right?
Re: Talk.
RE: Re: Talk.
"How does it work?"
Really, somebody needed to write a manual on human behaviors.
Re: Talk.
"You extend your arms," he said easily, because that was a perfectly normal question under the circumstances. He took a few steps closer until he was in hugging range, his own arms extended. "...And then you wrap them gently around the other person."
Which he did, slowly and with no small amount of paternal experience.
Re: Talk.
Overall, it was still a sort of confusing thing to do, though it wasn't entirely unappealing.
"How long do you do this for?"
Re: Talk.
Right now, though, he had to laugh. Softly. "For whatever period of time is comfortable, or the person you're hugging needs," he said.
Re: Talk.
Because, really, this was strange, but she could probably do it all day. It wasn't as though the sustained effort of keeping her arms around somebody was a drain, exactly.
It was possible she was missing the point, somewhat.
Re: Talk.
Someone else might have looked awkward, but not him.
Re: Talk.
She'd thought that it would be a gesture that would leave one vulnerable to attack, at the very least. But instead, it had seemed... welcoming? Trusting? She was trying to put a finger on exactly what the feeling was, but it wasn't one she had a wealth of experience with, either.
Re: Talk.
After all, the point of demonstrating the gesture was to see if Peridot could come to understand it.
Re: Talk.
"Well," she mused, "I suppose there was something reassuring in it in a sort of... protective... sense. Both persons are left equally vulnerable, but at the same time, there's an oddly secure feeling that accompanies it. It's difficult to describe."
Re: Talk.
He sat back down, picking up his bottle of water on the way.
Re: Talk.
"Thank you."
For explaining. For this talk. For the hug.
And, if that was what hugging meant, for that trust.