Dante`s Inferno- what level are you in?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

He's intimidating, yes? I see you've met your match, dear Lief! He's a formidable arguing force around here; I am ecstatic that he's joined the Entmoot club and eagerly look forward to each & every one of his posts.

Alex? Er I mean Blackheart? He's been in the stygian abyss for donkeys years.
*also likes reading diddykins comments

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

If you elect to make societal standards the measure of morality, you have no appeal when a society goes wrong. Historically, however, the existence of absolute values and their use in opposing such abberations as humanity is prone to have been widely used.

The standards of a society are hardly ever the same as the moral values. I would say almost never. The standards are usually several notches lower...

This is because many of those "absolute" moral values have conflicting results when they are practically applied.

Since this is still a side issue, I will just say that you can engage in relativism even while adhering to an absolute moral standard. It is a question of APPLICATION vs IDEALS..

No. If you engage your brother or sister in the absolute moral system, you are pointing out to them where their emphases are incongruent with the system acknowledged by all.

Absolute moral systems are almost never applied practically. If you are engaging someone in a disussion about the benefits of applying one absolute value over another absolute value, that is engaging in the weighing the of the practical benefits two absolutes. Which means that you have slipped into relativism, because you simply cannot have two absolutes. Not in a practical application.

Of course, if the seat-occupier is armed and dangerous, or bigger than you, you might ignore their immorality ("you shall not steal" has been violated). But I'll bet you won't continue complaining that "it's not fair". No absolute morality, no violation, no foul.

That's patently absurd. The basis for an idea of justice is ingrained in individuals by society (family primarily), and codified by law. The fact that you can concieve of a system where might is right and it is codified into law reveals how "relative" such applications of ideals are.

If it was the middle ages, and it was a noble in your seat, would that make it right? It certainly would as far as a peasant was concerned. But it wouldn't make it right as regards our current society.

And yet under the fuedal sustem, it was considered that "the right of kings" and nobility was an absolute. Upheld by the church and codified by law. What happened to that "absolute"?

Again this is a side issue. Though you can of course start applying how our current society is "better" than a fuedal system and then carry it to the question below...

How do you decide better, BH? To what are you appealing that I should acknowledge better? IF the appeal is to better 'toleration of individuality' was Hitler or Stalin the more realized individual? Idi Amin or Mengele? Buddha or St. Theresa?

But, I won't get pulled into a metaphysical argument on the nature of "better" at the moment. Especially since in the context better obviously means more effective, and therefore you should be able to answer your own list of examples no matter how fine you draw the line. (I'll give you a clue, however. Toleration of individuality roughly approximates equality and is one of the necessary componants).

Instead I'll just point out what you said earlier:

"By your rationale, no humans fail just the system. That is not the witness of multiple individuals in multiple systems who say that the fault lies within themselves (cf. Buddha, Ghandi, Paul, etc). What say you about that?"

If that was so, then why is it that those individuals wound up creating new systems and societies? Instead of just demanding that individuals adhere more closely to the strictures of the old system?

It has nothing to do with whether or not the new systems being created are BETTER or WORSE, it has to do with the idea that they implemented a CHANGE in response to percieved flaws in the old systems. Wheras you stated that it was due to the fact that they percieved flaws within themselves. If the flaws that concerned them the most were with themselves, then why did they need to invent new systems? Or PERHAPS, they looked at the flaws they percieved within themsleves an endimic to the OLD systems..

IF you do not have humans in relationship, you do not have society, BH. A person alone is not a society. //--||--\\ Even international law recognizes specific moral values between nations. IT's not a chicken or an egg scenario, BH. The egg doesn't relate.

I think that was rather my point.

your quote: "Which came first humans or systems? Individuals or societies? By your rationale, no humans fail just the system."

Humans do not exist outside of society. Not as human animals. Stating that the failure of humans to engage in moral behavior is something inherant in the human animal or a particular individual completely ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a human in isolation from society. Any failure of a human to integrate into a society is primarily the failure of the society.

Now of course you can go on and on and cite reams of reports on genetic traits influencing aggressive behaviors and other types of behaviors. But that still doesn't place the blame on the individual. If anything it places some of the ability for those individuals to control their behavior outside their reach. Again, how can you hold someone responsible for something they have no control over?

If it was a society that was truly enlightened, and I have as little an idea about what that would be like as anyone else, those individuals would have a positive place that suited their abilities and individual tempraments.




Ahh a main issue at last:

Great! Take it to the philosophy thread. But this is the Dante thread and Dante was a Christian. His definitions apply.

If that were the case, then why bother to have a discussion? It's one thing to argue within a particular context, without denying the existence of the entire context, and another thing to then suddenly declare that the context is immutable.

In other words, I feel quite comfortable addressing the implications of the effects of the existence or non-existence of original sin on Dante's Hell in a thread about Dante's Inferno.

But the existence of Sin itself? What would be the point? You can easily predict the outcome of such a discussion, and therefore it is of no interest.

So no, I don't think I will take it to another thread, since it relates quite well to the original topic.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Alex? Er I mean Blackheart? He's been in the stygian abyss for donkeys years.

I think I have a picture of you around here somewhere woman....

[Spock]

REMEMBER THE MOOT RULES-NEVER ATTACK THE POSTER

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Spock

REMEMBER THE MOOT RULES-NEVER ATTACK THE POSTER

What if it's a poster of the Partridge Family? Can we throw eggses at it then?

Perhaps it would help if you were to be a tad more specific? Or did I somehow miss a post?

[Lizra]

Hi Blackheart....What's up?

[Rían]

wow, Lizra! How's the garden and the painting?

[Lizra]

Good...everything's good. See my site for painting vibe. Still talking Tolkien? I think I said it all.....more or less.

[Rían]

*goes to site*

ooh, I remember the one on the lower left - I like it! What's it called? You should get a computer person to have the title come up when you move the cursor over your works - that would be cool!

I'm not talking Tolkien as much - I was really into one of the rpgs for awhile (my first experience at them) but there were too many tempers and it blew up

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I think I have a picture of you around here somewhere woman....

Ya still got that? One day I'm gonna haxxor your site, and stick teletubbies all over it.

Yeah, that's the least of my worries right now, mister hoochie coochie coo blackie wackie ickle-kins.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Hi Blackheart....What's up?

Just doing the seventh century stretch... Working the kinks out of the tentacles.. etc.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Ya still got that? One day I'm gonna haxxor your site, and stick teletubbies all over it.

It could only improve it. I've been extremely slack lately.

Yeah, that's the least of my worries right now, mister hoochie coochie coo blackie wackie ickle-kins.

I didn't think it would weigh heavily on your mind anyway ...

By the way that's not how you pronounce my name...

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Just doing the seventh century stretch... Working the kinks out of the tentacles.. etc.

I saw your giant schlon....eh....avatar. I couldn't resist it.....It turned me on.....

Rian, go to the the page labeled "Figments". All the non-objective abstracts are there...with titles. I believe you are referring to the black one, titled "Encouragement". Thank you.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I saw your giant schlon....eh....avatar. I couldn't resist it.....It turned me on.....

That must be why I wound up on the second level...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I saw your giant schlon....eh....avatar. I couldn't resist it.....It turned me on.....

Rian, go to the the page labeled "Figments". All the non-objective abstracts are there...with titles. I believe you are referring to the black one, titled "Encouragement". Thank you.

oh, I see ...

Yes, the titles are there - I like "Terra" a lot, too. Very nice!

[Lotesse]

Is this going to be a chat room now, or is this thread still for talking about Dante's Inferno? Just wondering.

Lizra, nice to see an old veteran return! So, did you take the test at the beginning of this thread? At which level are you in Dante's Inferno?

[Nurvingiel]

Oh my goodness!! It's Lizra and Boppy! Welcome back you guys!

I took the test, and then read the first couple pages of the thread. So Inked, did you take the test yet or what? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm in Level 1 - Limbo.

I got a high Lustful score, but a low Heretic score. I just have to read Dante's Inferno (or is the title Divine Comedy?) now!! I consider myself a heretic sometimes!

[Rían]

No, I don't think this is going to be a chat room now , but when a long-time Mooter like Lizra returns, I think some chat is fine. That decision is up to a mod, I guess.

Re the test - I think I would have scored higher in Lustful, but I lied on two of the questions because I didn't want to start being innundated with ads for "enhancement" and other such junk - we finally got rid of them and I don't want any more!

I'm so sad I can't read Dante in the original language I"m sure it loses a lot in the translation

[Lotesse]

I think there is both Divine Comedy AND Dante's Inferno; two different books. I could be wrong - someone correct me on this.

Good luck, I mean GOOD LUCK trying to get Inked to deign to take the Dante's Inferno test along with the rest of us mere mortals! Do you have any idea how long I've been trying to get him to take ANY of these tests that show others what kind of personality quirks or weaknesses we might have? He won't do it; he's the only one. I think he fears being thusly exposed here; right Inked? Scrred much? *tries to rouse Inked to the challenge* - take the test, Inked! What's so scary about it?

[sun-star]

The Inferno is the first part of the Divine Comedy, which also comprises the Purgatorio and the Paradiso.

RÃ*an, I know what you mean about translations. I've been reading a book on translation which discusses how difficult it is just to translate the one line above the gates of hell (famously rendered as 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter here'). Translations can never really be the same as the original. I like Dorothy L Sayers' version, though - admired by Lewis, not to mention inked, IIRC