Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
You miss me yet💦😻🌈 Suit @forever21 Hair @gorgius_official #ehmpryssselaydiafiyar #fisherdoll #sxdolls #LEOSREIGN #gorgius (at Link In Bio) https://www.instagram.com/p/CgJ1basghHJ/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Why Reasoning Related to Reason is Inherently Flawed
This has been bothering me for a while. I'm taking an ethics course and am currently reading Gorgius and the premise of which is worse "injustice" which is the equivalent to soul-pain/mental pain, and physical pain. I heard a great deal about Socrates and thought he would have been more thorough in his examinations.
The problem with elevating reason to the highest tier of importance through reason is that it's a form of circular logic. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
If one of the premises is challenged, the system cannot defend itself.
I've used reason to determine that reason is superior to all.
I've used appetite to determine that appetite is superior to all.
I've used passion to determine that passion is superior to all.
So, here's the thing: Socrates says that soul-pain is worse than physical pain, Polus disagrees, and Socrates disregards this. Why? Because through reason the reason-based aspect of self is deemed more important? Yet the aspects of self not reliant upon reason express themselves through other means entirely.
Is it because reason invalidates appetite and passion? It cannot. The three reside concurrently. It doesn't matter that you've chosen not to eat out of protest, the hunger doesn't evaporate or bow to your reason, it persists. It doesn't matter that you've decided painting is a waste of time, when you see a blank canvas the desire to create does not diminish. And it certainly can't be that reason governs all - because it clearly does not - the hedonist, the epicurean, beings who allow themselves to be governed primarily by appetite for the practical "reason" of survival, channeling their reason to serve their appetites.
Why then focus on the obvious agreement of your own perspective and not those that are in disagreement? Why sneer at the thought of discord or disagreement of one's own self? It's ever present.
Just like any body of individuals our bodies are made up of various variables. Even splitting it in two: "Soul" and "Body", let's see how that affects one's answer.
Which is worse, the soul's pain, or the body's pain?
Polus: I'd prefer neither.
Polus' Soul: The body, like, legit the body, no way around it.
Polus' Body: You douche, soul pain is way more subtle. Body pain is way worse.
Humans inevitably will do cost-benefit analysis when faced with conflict.
So let's keep it simple and start with two variables presented with Socrates.
There's:
Body Concern
Soul Concern
1st scenario: You are to punch a stranger walking by in the chest, if you do not, your hand will be cut off.
Reaction #1 (100% Soul Concern, 0% Body Concern): I will not infringe upon another. I shall lose my hand but not my dignity.
Reaction #2 (75% Soul Concern, 25% Body Concern): I feel an obligation to protect my body, but to infringe upon another disturbs me deeply. I may punch that stranger in the chest, but after this madwoman who is threatening the safety of my hand leaves, I must repent to him or her.
Reaction #3 (50% Soul Concern, 50% Body Concern): I will punch a stranger in the chest, his or her temporary bodily discomfort and confusion does not outweigh the pain and impairment I would experience should I lose my hand.
Reaction #4 (25% Soul Concern, 75% Body Concern): I should think if I had to choose between my hand and the hand of another, I would choose mine. I will not do more than what is asked of me to keep my hand, but if I was asked of more I would not hesitate.
Reaction #5 (0% Soul Concern, 100% Body Concern): The individual putting me in this position is no ally. I will have them murdered in their sleep to prevent further endangerment.
If reaction #1 and #5 seem ridiculous, it is because they are the least balanced of reactions. That's yet another problem dealing with Socrates. He looks off as though he's outside the system, not realizing the system extends far beyond him and hopes of unquantifiable objectivity are unattainable as the mind is wired for subjectivity. I know that if I see my reaction as balanced (#3) then those that differ from my own reaction are imbalanced, and I recognize that I myself am biased.
I present myself in a biased manner because I know of no other, but I make clear of that bias to others, or I attempt to. That's important when it comes to shifting understandings to relate to others, or it is from my mind's eye. So this relativistic stance I've grown comfortable with is only content in being "boxed in" to a particular notion or idea for a very short period of time. Staying in one place is hard. I want to go in every direction.
Does this mean reactions #1 and #5 are right or wrong? Yes and no and maybe and sometimes.
I doubt I'm making sense. I think my psyche's too shattered to assemble a working, coherent model of perceptions. Back to my regularly scheduled tumblring.
