We Shall Now Begin Ethics - Vol. 4 Ch. 17 - Man in the Mirror

[akiarag]

the author of this manga really knows whats up with highschool

 

[Ariamcon]

This manga is underrated wtf

 

[Nessen]

Ethics or philosophy without presuming there will be a right and wrong answer is simply nihilism. It's as correct and useful as saying, "Sometimes somewhere something may happen".

 

[ampnaman]

Seeing his students lined up for the debate like that is pretty cool...

 

[SomeThingsAreWack]

@Nessen fr fr, I hate that default assumption of no right answer.

 

[Castafiore]

@Nessen Logical positivism has it's upsides and downsides as with anything. The simple problem is that a human's knowledge is finite. Many ethical problems are not irresolvable because there is no right answer, but because there are many "right answers" which exist under differing subsets of knowledge. Which right answer is more right, is there any meaning is discussing or distuingishing a right answer, is in itself a philosophical debate. Perhaps one who holds all the knowledge in the universe could solve such problems. But we are not such beings. The pursuit of such answers may be an answer itself instead of stagnation.

 

[Yabster_907]

@SomeThingsAreWack That's the thing with philosophy and ethics, no right answer can become the default assumption when we talk things out. When we say things out loud we start to notice what used to be a simple problem becomes much more complicated.

 

[Nessen]

@SomeThingsAreWack Rise up gamer!
@Castafiore I disagree. There is only one single right answer - whatever you deem it to be. We are all Sisyphus, eternally rolling a boulder up a hill again and again - a seemingly futile endeavor. But it truly becomes futile when you stop rolling your boulder entirely - to cast away your answer. From the day I was born I have not once changed my conviction and I would suffer and die before I do. My existence is my "argument" and the universe is our "debate floor". You can compromise your conviction or pretend you're some tabula rasa if you want - you just make it easier to be consigned to oblivion.
@Yabster_907 *That's the thing with persuasion. A negotiator isn't a philosopher, though a philosopher can act like a negotiator. Philosophy really denotes that one has constructed an ethical framework, a right and wrong, even if it may be ultimately flawed.

 

[Yabster_907]

@Nessen This particular chapter is showcasing that our own right answer is not always the case, bringing in others perspectives can help us see things in a different light. In this context the one right answer (for debate) is just not possible for all types of answers has strengths and weaknesses, truths and non-truths in certain circumstances. Philosophy also has to do with exploring the world around us so that we can shape our beliefs, conversation is but a means to do so. Arguments and debates may rely on rhetoric but there would be nothing wrong if it came from a genuine place and not simply done to win. Beliefs can be strengthened and weakened, if our thought were non-malleable then that is no better than putting on ear plugs when others are discussing.

 

[Nessen]

@Yabster_907 Truth can exist independent of any particular experience or knowledge of the world. We live in a post-knowledge world - we can come up with "knowledge" until we can say up is actually down and down is actually up. Engaging in debate, hearing other perspectives, and incorporating how your conviction would answer their woes is all fine and dandy, but if one has compromised their conviction, then they have lost to this universe. To convince someone else is to destroy who they were and to replicate yourself.

 

[Yabster_907]

@Nessen It seems that conviction is your end-all-be-all but while it can be considered a virtue when taken too far it's no better then being stuck in an echo chamber. So I just don't understand your aversion to debate and perspectives when it can ultimately strengthen or weaken beliefs as it should. For our thoughts and beliefs are constantly challenged and we only lose to the universe when we stop trying to develop. Your take on conviction is sounding no better then stagnancy.

 

[Nessen]

@Yabster_907 Everyone is in an echo chamber. Once again, we can come up with "knowledge" until we can say up is actually down and down is actually up. We can come up with whatever "knowledge" we want to reaffirm whatever we want it to. We are all in an echo chamber, and I want to crash it with no survivors. I have no aversion to debate or perspectives, but like I said, to convince someone else is to destroy who they were and to replicate yourself. To debate someone is to risk destroying or being destroyed.

A conviction is your answer - your meaning to living in a universe otherwise devoid of meaning. It does not have to be fully formed the minute you're born and can be developed as you say. It can also be something as silly as only left-handed people are good and right-handed people are bad - some philosophies are just as "silly"; but rather than changing it at a whim and never learning what if, one should take it to its' conclusion and learn the result. If it should lead to their destruction then they should shake the universe with its' explosion.

 

[Yabster_907]

@Nessen So you would agree that there is no right answer? Your original comment is that philosophy and ethics with no right or wrong is useless. But you go on to say that convictions are destroyed through debate. The manga chapter introduces the idea that with other's perspective everyone realized that all answers has forms of truth. Saying that there is no right answer is true and as you stated our convictions is our own answer. So how can there be a right answer when everyone has their own?

And please for future reference understand that philosophy talk can become complicated and when you start delving into meta then it makes it worse. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from but I am struggling since you are making the complex more complex.

 

[Nessen]

@Yabster_907 No, not at all. I did not say one's conviction is destroyed through debate, I said it is to risk it. Actually convincing someone to your conviction is to destroy them and to replicate yourself. As I said, one's existence itself is the "argument" and the universe is the "debate floor" - there can be a right answer when all is said and done, the stars have gone supernova, the universe has frozen over, and still something remains. The answer is whatever survives the death of this answer-less universe. To put it as simply as I can - haven't you ever wanted to rule the universe?

 

[Yabster_907]

@Nessen The truth is that if we create "knowledge" then there is no right or wrong, if we have our own answers then nothing could be truly right nor wrong. You said "to debate someone is to risk destroying or being destroyed", so how is one's conviction not destroyed if you are risking it. Replicating yourself by convincing them is destroying one's conviction as you said for they no longer have that same conviction, thus being destroyed.

You're speaking of existence as our argument in the universe but that has nothing to do with the context of this particular chapter nor your original comment of the main point of this chapter being useless. As I said many times, the main point is that there can be no true answer for if we have our own answers that are fitting then nothing can be truly right or wrong.

Nothing survives the answer-less universe for when all said is done it will just be. So there is no ruling of the universe if our existence is no longer in the universe, or our argument is no longer on the debate floor.

 

[Nessen]

@Yabster_907 I don't think you understand. Right and wrong exists independent of the human experience. If all sentient lifeforms were extinct, right and wrong would still exist. When one finds their conviction, they are betting their existence that THIS is the answer, at last! And for all we know, they could actually be right. That is how multiple people can find their own conviction, all of them carrying the potential to be the answer, but not all of them will prevail.

You can debate a person and no one is convinced of anything at all.

The answer to this answer-less universe is all-encompassing - that means high school debates, too. It doesn't have to be life-or-death right then and there but...don't pretend a right answer doesn't exist.

I'm gonna make the universe my bitch.

 

[Yabster_907]

@Nessen I may have had a hard time but I did enjoy this philosophy talk, it just seems that we have fundamental differences in our beliefs but that's not a problem at all. Since I got to see a really different perspective!

 

[Nessen]

@Yabster_907 Rise up, gamer. Rise up.

 

[Castafiore]

@Nessen I won't deny that that too is a right answer. But again, you are not the holder of the truths of the universe. Humans simply cannot obtain, nor plausibly contain the vast knowledge on everything in the universe. A "universally right answer" can only be ascertained with complete confidence when one knows everything that is and encompasses the world. We still don't know if Gods exist. Which is precisely the paradoxical problem in professing existential truths. If there are higher powers, then it wouldn't be out of the question that some true meaning exists. But ascertaining the existence of Gods without their help is equivalent to becoming Gods ourselves. We are constantly subjected to the uncertainty of our own existence because the plausibility of the existence of things which are above our comprehension, but to resolve that uncertainty is to become a different existence entirely. All answers are right in a world of perpetual uncertainty of infinite knowledge; but none of them will ever be truly "universally right." Even an answer which says all answers are correct is no exception to the rule. Perhaps ironically, it's all meaningless in verifying one's meaning, as long as one believes it to be correct. People believe in falsehoods all the time. Existential meaning is no different in that sense, but varies in that it gives itself meaning through one's faith in it, regardless of it's correctness or not. Fascinating and frustrating all the same, there aren't losers to meaning unless you think they are. The universe moves on regardless.

 

[Nessen]

@Castafiore If a caterpillar becoming a butterfly means they become a completely different existence, then I'm not opposed. If no higher power exists, then I will become one. For all their talk of being open-minded or tabula rasas, people want a universal answer to finally put to rest these tiresome and seemingly endless rehashed arguments. They are drawn to it. When the European man saw the ocean, he built a boat. When he saw the sky, he built a plane. When he saw the stars, he built a rocket. It's time to rise up, gamer.