Replies

That sounds so warm, fuzzy, thoughtful and Hegelian.
_________________________________________________

I don’t think I ever knew the origin of the concept that the opposite of love is indifference. Maybe it was Hegel or an interpretation of his ideas. Hegel also insisted that reason and freedom are historical achievements, not natural givens. That could be the source of President Reagan’s assertion that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Hegel also said that self-determination is the essence of humanity. Is he saying that when we alone control how we react to situations, and we make decisions in response to those situations, that we’re maximizing our humanity? Hmmm. I know that I don’t want external forces taking away my autonomy or controlling my reactions to situations. I think I give away some of my self-determination and some of my humanity when I let someone else control my reactions.

Good talk.

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 01/04/2023 Vol.444, Q Day 1895, Cletus.D.Yokel wrote:
:: I learned that the opposite of love isn’t hate because they’re both intense emotions that make a person want to interact with the one evoking the strong emotion. The opposite of love is indifference. ::
That sounds so warm, fuzzy, thoughtful and Hegelian.
Now do “good and evil aren’t opposites”.
Hegel could.
Did you know that Karl Marx was a scholastic child of Hegel?
LittleLinda's post are reliably thoughtful.
It turns out Hegel was right about this.I watched it play out in my friend's gruesome divorce. They were then sharing custody of a child with brain cancer. I'd listen to her emphasize the importance of the child being taken on time to medical appointments or other service appointments/events, and then see the creep husband 'forget'. She would then furiously demand to know why the child didn't make it to the appointments and whatever creep husband's response was, she would leave angrier. Rinse and repeat.
I finally ventured where I normally NEVER go (into the middle of divorce issues) with her. I told her that when she emphasized that the parent teacher meeting was important, I knew that creep husband wasn't going to attend it. I said when she begged/negotiated/complained about the child's medical insurance premium (hubby 'forgot' to pay it while kid was having a series of complex surgeries), I was certain he would 'forget' again and again.
I said her creep of a husband wanted to see her engaging with him - looking at him, focusing with intensity on him, just for the purpose of 'enjoying' her pain and his power to cause it. I encouraged her not to engage at all. She worried he wouldn't follow through on the child's needs and I pointed out he wasn't doing so with requests, negotiations, bribes etc., much less complaints.
So the next week, when she dropped the child off at his father's house, she quietly noted that the boy's special needs basketball game was at 4pm on Saturday. Creep husband drawled, "Yeah, I'm thinking I just don't feel like going...." She briskly announced that he was disgusting and walked away. Creep was shocked. SHOCKED. She learned later that the boy was taken to basketball. And so the power of attention was removed.
My story is not warm or fuzzy, but it's just one of many ways I know Hegel, and LittleLinda were right. On the Chans, the Anons didn't make expulsion of trolls a 'line in the sand' because they wanted the freedom of speech the website offered. They coached noobs to ignore trolls and just got 'business done' despite the howling trolls. And here we are today (i.e., their strategy worked) with red-pilled people calling our threads home.
It's possible that those who demand greater freedom of speech on FR are best served by not demanding that others be silenced, but instead subject their critics to silence.
If collaborating to deny funding based on removal of specific content worked, the Q threads would have been a distant memory long ago.
I've never received the volume of the troll's insults received by those now in contention because I never engaged him. Every post to him opens the door to another volley of his 'content'. I closed that door and focus on posting what people need to read, and if he chooses to 'throw rocks' at me for the content I post, I sometimes make it a point to post more of the same content.

Now do “good and evil aren’t opposites”. Hegel could.

Having read Hegel extensively I can say with some authority that he is unintelligible. You can read it 3 times and still not have a clue what he is saying. It may be on purpose. The Hegelian dialectic is understandable and explains what our politicians are doing to us but that's about all.

I prefer Augustine on evil. Augustine said that evil is always a privation of the good. Evil has no independent existence despite the fact that it is a thing. It can only exist when it has some good to pervert. Consider a wound on your arm. The wound needs the good arm to exist. If time passes and the arm heals where does the wound go? It has no independent existence apart from a good arm. evil shares this attribute of the wound. Every evil needs some good thing to pervert. If the good is restored the evil ceases to exist.

Evil is not the opposite of good, it is a privation of the good. Good is the condition of creation as God made it. Notice Genesis chapters 1 & 2. God made it and what? Saw that it was Good.