Credit, News, & Questions
- Credit for this poster goes to FishKA13 of the Creators Faction.
- There is nothing to report until next week.
- Can some things that sound stupid be justified by reason?
- Which dragons, if any, will you be breeding this event?
- Every stupid-sounding concept has a well-founded reason, whether that’s the basis or the aftermath. The same sort of reverse effect can be established in well-founded concepts versus stupid-sounding reasons. Logic can only be made logical as a factor of illogic, because when logic exists on its own, we don’t know that it exists as logic, the same way we would never be able to discern someone as intellectual if everyone were equally intelligent.
One of the keys to justifying a preposterous concept as reasonable is to single out anything making it that way, and to attack it at its root, offering an objection that is morally agreeable and contrasts with the most obvious conclusion. Persuasion can be achieved whether concrete or abstract matters are presented in the argument.
Some things have no morally agreeable outcome whatsoever; therefore, they are not justifiable by any means. Other things have one or more morally agreeable outcome(s), so they are justifiable.
However, most concepts have a mixture of both morally agreeable and morally disagreeable outcomes; for example, if I say that on the road, we should not be required to yield to pedestrians because “those pedestrians should be watching for oncoming vehicles”, there is some slight validity in that reason, because they should be cautious when they’re so vulnerable, but the same logic doesn’t add up for everyone because some pedestrians could be blind. (I would certainly hope they would refuse to drive if they had impaired vision.) With those types of scenarios, you could typically base judgment on what you win and what you lose as a result of whichever, instead of leaning toward logic; for instance, a blind pedestrian could lose their life, but that’s no less likely than a pedestrian whose vision functions perfectly and just fails to pay adequate attention to surroundings; the fact that the cost is so high on one end provides the justification means for whether or not drivers should yield to pedestrians at all times, apart from the fact that it’s a law.
But frankly, anything can be presented as logical or reasonable; someone who is generally very poor and weak in logic/reasoning situations would submit to having poor and weak logic/reasoning be a basis for what is being represented, while someone with expertise in that field would know which cherries to pick from the tree.
It all comes down to how the individuals in question view the scenario, even though there is always at least one reasonable conclusion that supersedes all subjective opinion there is to present, even if not many are aware of such a thing. As far as we’re concerned, we all live in our own worlds, where our own logic conflicts with the logic holding reality together, although only one of the two really matters. The tension between multiple forms of logic, one of which is existentially superior to all others, is what makes some concepts sound dumber to most than to others of a certain mindset.
But just because something is objectively reasonable does not mean it’s morally justifiable, even though reason is all you really need to justify. That said, even though the result of any logic-based argument is the justification (which can be faulty or consistent), you cannot justify something that sounds stupid by reason, because in an ideal debate, you want to start at the premises and work your way up, and you want your premises to be reasonable; if you don’t start at the premises, or if you do and your premises are unreasonable, your conclusion will be weak, and since the conclusion is the justification in a dispute, you have no justification to fall back on for what seemed to be stupid. The same way a house requires strength in structure and material to be viable for those who live in it, justification requires firm and reasonable premises to protect from fraudulence once it’s time to determine whether or not justification standards have been met. Reason is the foundation; you can’t stop at the foundation (e.g. use it to form the view of the overall whole… e.g. justifying anything by reason) and say it’s the full effect.
- Thanks to the results that my Draconic Chests yielded, I will be breeding Narmak (my final Artisan dragon) and maybe Ralen (my first Monarch dragon), depending on whatever circumstances may occur; I am hoping that Assault can help me knock both dragons out of the park.