As terrible as war, famine, hunger, crime, natural disasters, etc. are, if there were none would the world be a boring place? It would certainly be better, but would some of the pride of life be taken away, if everyone else lived as good as you?

As terrible as war, famine, hunger, crime, natural disasters, etc. are, if there were none would the world be a boring place? It would certainly be better, but would some of the pride of life be taken away, if everyone else lived as good as you?


Now let's see.  My grandmother watched her mother die in childbirth, her father die after being set on fire by a racist, a brother die of influenza, 2 brothers and 2 sisters die of consumption, a son die after being hit by a car.
I think she would have accepted boredom with a smiling face.  Doesn't make me feel better that she had to feel that pain.

The simple answer to that question: No.




Cat

I do not think I would use the word "tragedy".

However, I think life would be dull without struggle, adversity, and the unexpected.

After all, these are the kinds of events that makes us stronger, and often brings out the best traits in people.  And often going through these events makes us stronger people, or leaves us in a better position then we were in before.

Tragedy by it's name implies death and horrible devistation, on the level of say 9/11 or Katrina.  But sometimes, disasters can have beneficial effects, like the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.  Very few people died, LA pulled itself together again, and a sense of community was felt that had vanished in the years before.  It also helped to pull the region out of the recession of the prior 5 years, and started a wave of building and economic growth that lasted 6 years.

However, there are cases where a tragedy can have long-reaching effects for the better.  The International Red Cross was born on the battlefield, and helps millions of people worldwide.  Organizations like the Pediatric AIDS Foundation were started because of a personal tragedy.  Groups like this strive to help countless people simply for the sake of helping humanity.

As terrible as war, famine, hunger, crime, natural disasters, etc. are, if there were none would the world be a boring place? It would certainly be better, but would some of the pride of life be taken away, if everyone else lived as good as you?


Boring?  I don't think so.  But I'd ask a similar question with a different twist.

If there were no pain or heartache or conflict, would we have any understanding of or appreciation for love, joy, peace, etc.?  Isn't it the existence of opposites that gives things like that definition?

Boring?  I don't think so.  But I'd ask a similar question with a different twist.

If there were no pain or heartache or conflict, would we have any understanding of or appreciation for love, joy, peace, etc.?  Isn't it the existence of opposites that gives things like that definition?


Wow, my head almost exploded, that was so deep ;D  Cool stuff.

Yeah, but not if it happens to me! The group Front 242 had a song, "Tragedy for You." That sums it up, tragedy for you! A wiser man than I once defined "news" as when one half of the world gets to laugh at the other half's problems!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif

Yeah, but not if it happens to me! The group Front 242 had a song, "Tragedy for You."

Whoa!  A fellow F242 fan, too!

(I gave up dating around the time this came out - always parsed the line as "Her acid reign", instead of "Her acid rain", and then NIN illuminated me - better to die than give her control.  If you want the next song in the playlist, LATour's "Cold" - let's just say that what he sang with irony I'll sing with conviction. It's good to be cold!)

Anwyays, everyone's required reading for tonight:  Ursula K. LeGuin, The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.omelas.html

Me?  I'd shrug my shoulders and have a beer.  Small price to pay.  My only beef with current events is that I sure as hedoublehockeysticks ain't livin' in Omelas, and that it's gonna take at least a million and change, after-tax, to convince me that I'm living in a sufficiently reasonable facsimile.

Without a degree of suffering, life would be dull and pleasure would mean nothing.. however, I think "tragedy" is stepping into some.. well, "tragedy" takes it a bit far, maybe.

Boring?  I don't think so.  But I'd ask a similar question with a different twist.

If there were no pain or heartache or conflict, would we have any understanding of or appreciation for love, joy, peace, etc.?  Isn't it the existence of opposites that gives things like that definition?


No Good, No Evil. Good only exists because there is 'Evil.'

As terrible as war, famine, hunger, crime, natural disasters, etc. are, if there were none would the world be a boring place? It would certainly be better, but would some of the pride of life be taken away, if everyone else lived as good as you?


I guess life would be boring with drama and unpredictability. 'Tragedy', like Sept 11 (if you're referring to that) might fall under the umbrella of 'high drama.' I guess that could be the case - if you view History a great Soap Opera played out in the Stage of the World.

Boring?  I don't think so.  But I'd ask a similar question with a different twist.

If there were no pain or heartache or conflict, would we have any understanding of or appreciation for love, joy, peace, etc.?  Isn't it the existence of opposites that gives things like that definition?


Very good!  This is an example of the Hegalian dialectic.  Nothing can de defined without its opposit.  Further, there is always a struggle, or tension between the two until the the thesis and antithesis are resolved in synthesis.  This is true in the material world as well as in the philosophical world. 

On another level, since both challange and tragedy are inevitable in life, the question is moot.

Boring?  I don't think so.  But I'd ask a similar question with a different twist.

If there were no pain or heartache or conflict, would we have any understanding of or appreciation for love, joy, peace, etc.?  Isn't it the existence of opposites that gives things like that definition?


Excellent post.


k.

Boring?  I don't think so.  But I'd ask a similar question with a different twist.

If there were no pain or heartache or conflict, would we have any understanding of or appreciation for love, joy, peace, etc.?  Isn't it the existence of opposites that gives things like that definition?

I agree with Bobby, you make a very concise point here. When we see the rich and the beautiful get hooked on dope or commit suicide, we often say, "but so-and-so had it all!" Then again, maybe not!

Very good!  This is an example of the Hegalian dialectic.  Nothing can de defined without its opposit.  Further, there is always a struggle, or tension between the two until the the thesis and antithesis are resolved in synthesis.  This is true in the material world as well as in the philosophical world. 

On another level, since both challange and tragedy are inevitable in life, the question is moot.


Thanks.  That's good information -- I had not heard of the "Hegalian dialectic."  I also think the process you described (thesis, antithesis and synthesis) functions in the spiritual realm as well (if you happen to believe in a spiritual realm, which I do....it's a form of the Trinity perhaps).

And, yeah, the question's moot.  but I still think it's all fun to articulate.

I agree with Bobby, you make a very concise point here. When we see the rich and the beautiful get hooked on dope or commit suicide, we often say, "but so-and-so had it all!" Then again, maybe not!


It goes to show that there are more fundamental aspects to human life/nature than merely acquiring wealth and status.

It goes to show that there are more fundamental aspects to human life/nature than merely acquiring wealth and status.


Yeah, but tell that to the wealthy and status laden.  There are unnecessary man made tragedies everyday, that could be alleviated with a much more equitable distribution of economic/human resources.

Yeah, but tell that to the wealthy and status laden.  There are unnecessary man made tragedies everyday, that could be alleviated with a much more equitable distribution of economic/human resources.


The wealthy and status laden have the mentality that they worked hard to make those man-made tragedies in the first place.

The wealthy and status laden have the mentality that they worked hard to make those man-made tragedies in the first place.


CeeKay's automatic response machine says....."I agree with Bobby."

;) (it's true)

CeeKay's automatic response machine says....."I agree with Bobby."

;) (it's true)


It's the calm before the storm, CeeKay, lol.

The wealthy and status laden have the mentality that they worked hard to make those man-made tragedies in the first place.


Here's the way I look at it: rich people not only DO contribute back to society through employment, business, investments and donations, they contribute MORE than Joe Q. Me or You.  So you cannot say that they do not at least try to alleviate these man-made tragedies, as you call them.  Can they try harder?  Of course they can.  Some contribute 50% of their ludicrously large incomes to charity, while others form charitable foundations and encourage volunteering.  Some do it merely because they get a tax deduction (I know my parents do this, although they are by no stretch of the imagination "rich"...just knowledgeable about their money).  But can you FORCE them to contribute?  No.

Here's the way I look at it: rich people not only DO contribute back to society through employment, business, investments and donations, they contribute MORE than Joe Q. Me or You.  So you cannot say that they do not at least try to alleviate these man-made tragedies, as you call them.  Can they try harder?  Of course they can.  Some contribute 50% of their ludicrously large incomes to charity, while others form charitable foundations and encourage volunteering.  Some do it merely because they get a tax deduction (I know my parents do this, although they are by no stretch of the imagination "rich"...just knowledgeable about their money).  But can you FORCE them to contribute?  No.


Well, Rice, I was thinking on a more personal level for these rich people rather than how these people affect my life (when I said 'man-made' I was referring to how they make their own problems). A lot of these people gain this wealth and status and find themselves worrying about their own security, family and their almost neverending social/business activities.

Well, Rice, I was thinking on a more personal level for these rich people rather than how these people affect my life (when I said 'man-made' I was referring to how they make their own problems). A lot of these people gain this wealth and status and find themselves worrying about their own security, family and their almost neverending social/business activities.


Ah, those people.  Well, you have to sacrifice a lot and risk a lot to make an oodle of money, so yeah, they deserve that :D  But I'm sure you're more likely to be happier with an oodle of money than without, so that is what drives people.

Ah, those people.  Well, you have to sacrifice a lot and risk a lot to make an oodle of money, so yeah, they deserve that :D  But I'm sure you're more likely to be happier with an oodle of money than without, so that is what drives people.


Yeah, I'd like a decent pot of money to play with.  :)

Thanks.  That's good information -- I had not heard of the "Hegalian dialectic."  I also think the process you described (thesis, antithesis and synthesis) functions in the spiritual realm as well (if you happen to believe in a spiritual realm, which I do....it's a form of the Trinity perhaps).

And, yeah, the question's moot.  but I still think it's all fun to articulate.


So far we are in total agreement, now follow me a bit further and see what you think.  I include the spiritual in the philosophical, but if I remember my Catacism right, there is noi tension between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they are three in one, united against the other one.  The strruggle between good & evil, which is the basis of the Hegalian dialectic.  Marx stood Hegal "on his head" by applying the same thinking to class relations, the struggle between "the ruling class" (whoever that might be in any historical epoch) and the ruled.  So master vrs slaves, serfs vrs lords, capitalists vrs workers, the interests of each group are diametrically opposed, so they are opposits, neither of which could not exist without the other (thesis and antithesis) and in each case the synthesis has become thesis by generating its antithesis, and so we see the spiritual/philosophical dial;ecting manifested in the material world AS WELL.  This formulation becomes MUCH more complex as we apply it to historical reality, and is just the starting point for Historical Materialism (which does not deny the importance of ideas or ideology, but tries to ground them in the historical conditions in which they thrives.  These discussions are, to me, much more interesting then those to which no imerical evidance can be brought to bear, or to those based on counterfactual models.  I look forward to your reaction.  Best, DC

So far we are in total agreement, now follow me a bit further and see what you think.  I include the spiritual in the philosophical, but if I remember my Catacism right, there is noi tension between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they are three in one, united against the other one.  The strruggle between good & evil, which is the basis of the Hegalian dialectic.  Marx stood Hegal "on his head" by applying the same thinking to class relations, the struggle between "the ruling class" (whoever that might be in any historical epoch) and the ruled.  So master vrs slaves, serfs vrs lords, capitalists vrs workers, the interests of each group are diametrically opposed, so they are opposits, neither of which could not exist without the other (thesis and antithesis) and in each case the synthesis has become thesis by generating its antithesis, and so we see the spiritual/philosophical dial;ecting manifested in the material world AS WELL.  This formulation becomes MUCH more complex as we apply it to historical reality, and is just the starting point for Historical Materialism (which does not deny the importance of ideas or ideology, but tries to ground them in the historical conditions in which they thrives.  These discussions are, to me, much more interesting then those to which no imerical evidance can be brought to bear, or to those based on counterfactual models.  I look forward to your reaction.  Best, DC


Okay, I'll try.  First, I will take your comment about Marx stood Hegal "on his head" by applying the same thinking to class relations, the struggle between "the ruling class" (whoever that might be in any historical epoch) and the ruled.  So master vrs slaves, serfs vrs lords, capitalists vrs workers, the interests of each group are diametrically opposed, so they are opposits.

I believe that this dynamic is possible but not always true.  They are only opposites, in my initial thinking here (I have not studied this), if the driving force of the ruler is greed and/or power.  I can be a capitalist in theory, but that might not be my ultimate personal ruling force.  In that case, Marx's dynamic will prove false or at least incomplete or weak.  I guess what I'm trying to say is, while there might be a level of opposition between classes, I don't agree that that opposition is completely "opposite" -- it could be a tension, I guess, rather than a pure opposition -- nor is it that tension necessarily the ultimate ruling dynamic (opposed within the context by interruptions like generosity, conscience, love...).

I'm not sure if I'm making sense.  But I think so.

Then, there's a part of your quote I don't completely understand and perhaps you would reword for me:  in each case the synthesis has become thesis by generating its antithesis.  Are you saying that if the ruler and the ruled merge, they just end up becoming a new ruling class which necessarily generates a new working class?  (my best understanding here but I could see how that would be true).

I've studied religion and just a little philosophy but I'm awful with history so....thanks for engaging in this discussion.