Ripheus23
-
Posts
1318 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
5 Followers
Ripheus23's Achievements
1.1k
Reputation
Single Status Update
-
The Unicorn Archons
A faction among in the ecometers who are devoted to protecting the pegasus seraph.
What is wrong with Armirex's reasoning
There's more to the problem than just, "Let's replace the concept of evil with the concept of nothingness." Armirex sort of already BELIEVES the privation-of-being theory of evil, in that he defines evil not as "the opposite of" but as "the absence of" the good. However, the fundamental principle of the concept of difference in itself is, "Absences and opposites are different differences." And the true concept of evil is not "not good" but "anti-good."
So, in deontic logic, the operators OBLIGATED (Ob), PERMITTED, (Pm), FORBIDDEN (Fr), and so on, all have interrelations. For example, you might say that something is obligated, Ob(x), just in case it is not permitted to not do it, ~Pm(~x). [Although, to be sure, such a negative relational definition would make goodness itself into a form of nothingness...] The fundamental semantics for the deontic operators are grounded in the simple interfunctions of the deontic syntax in general and the syntax of basic propositional logic in the operators AND, NOT, and OR. So, something is obligated if and only if there is a reason to do it, Ob(x); if there is no reason to do something, and no reason not to, that thing is indifferently permitted ~Ob(x) & ~Ob(~x) = Pm(x); something might have a reason to or to not do it inside itself, which is differentially permitted*, Ob(x \/ ~x); something might have a reason to not do it, Ob(~x) = Fr(x). And there's a fifth "simple" formula (relying only on the simplest interchanges of the basic logical operators), here, which I won't spell out but it corresponds to something being "supererogated," beyond the call of duty/an act of grace. AFAIK these are the only 5 moral descriptions of an action that can be constructed from simple logical forms as such.
So, in Armirex's mind, since evil is nothingness, somehow, he doesn't draw the distinction between the two spheres of permission as he should, and thence neither is his identification of moral negation (Fr(x)) is compromised, too. Wherefore, in a way, you could say his attempt to destroy the Form of Evil by fusing it with the Form of Nothingness, also amounts to attempting to fuse the Form of Evil with the Form of Permission.
- Show previous comments 2 more
-
*Differently permitted:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/#4.6 explains this topic.
-
The other way to think about it is is in terms of the categories of will. If all five deontic categories are in the will generally, and if the absolute proof theorem says that Fr(x) can be negated, then maybe part of Armirex's mistake is to think that negating the differently optional with Fr(x) is "the way to go." I.e. he seeks to "rectify" the absolute proof of the Keyscape programming logic by fusing the differently permitted with the prohibited, and then denying both (in destruction by way of Apollyon).
-
"Of course, evil as the absence of good (privatio boni) is to be distinguished from evil as the absence of existence itself, specific or perfect nonexistence. Armirex understood the negative meaning of Apollyon as constituting proof that to exist is to be in an intrinsically (morally/ethically/spiritually) good state, so that the general "pressure to exist" is symptomatic of goodness being existence as such, somehow. Therefore did Armirex interpret evil as the absence of all being whatsoever; wherefore when he fought to destroy the Form of Evil, he sought to make the absence of good become the absence of being as such."