Feels weird that you would exclude "harm" or "suffering" from the argument. You keep saying "just because" like it all exists within a vacuum free of consequences of actions, or the presence of inbuilt, consistent reactions to said consequences that'd be essentially the same across all parties involved.
after all, let's not forget the golden rule upon which most of morality is based.
The acceptance that there are things that are unpleasant or harmful, that you yourself have experienced such things that you didn't like, and that you can understand others having this same capacity to not like or desire certain things, and out of this understanding you choose to show respect for others and try to avoid subjecting others to harm or delighting in their suffering.
neither harmony or disharmony are neutral when suffering comes into play, since due to innate biology, suffering has degree's of severity. you can solidly say one kind of suffering is greater than another.
so compare the suffering of one individual being trapped in stone for a thousand years, to hundreds of thousands of entities of similar emotional and mental capacity being tortured for a thousand years. You could try to ask why one is worse than the other, but in general the only way to come to the conclusion that they are equal is to make the nihilistic argument that they're equal because everything is equally meaningless.
to make the argument that since something is not absolutely black or white, severity therefore no longer matters, is flawed when there are explicit, inherent, biologically driven limitations or goals in play.
Also it wasn't Celestia who ordered the mind wiping "reformation spell", that was actually something Twilight did of her own accord and against the wishes of Celestia. Celestia's plan was fluttershy. And i know you've made the argument that fluttershys plan was emotional manipulation but fact is, friendship doesn't exist in a vacuum either. all deliberate social interaction is conditional. in fact nothing humans ever do is ever truly unconditional. There are too many factors in play for something to ever really be unconditional and entirely free of consequence, such is the nature of temporary beings who exist within a wide set of limitations. Like a grandmothers love of their grand kids is often passed off as unconditional, when what they really mean is, no matter how much of a little shit they might be the grandma will probably still love them. But the grandmas love is still conditional, because guess what, alzheimer's disease has kicked in, and she doesn't even know the grandkids exist anymore, or what a grandkid even is. "Unconditional" love gone.
and there's a difference between emotionally beating someone into submission and getting them to understand that when you break someones trust, you no longer have their trust. And if you value the fun and emotional support gained by that person making themselves vulnerable and risking interacting with you without aggression or fear, then you have to abide by the conditions of creating that environment.
Just like how you don't try to grow a plant in a pot full of weed killer then blame the plant for the sin of denying you it's beautiful foliage and tasty fruit when you put so much effort into watering it every day and are in desperate need of the fruit it once had the potential to create, but now can't cus you ignored one of the most basic conditions of growing a plant (condition being don't try to grow a plant in a pot full of plant poison dumbass).
Although if you actually wanted to further that train of thought, you'd have to say less about how fluttershy did a manipulative thing, and more ask if it was immoral to introduce discord to the concept of friendship at all if it meant having to go through the experience of what it's like when your inconsiderate behavior causes you to lose a friend.
Anyway point is, so long as you exist as a human or human-equivalent (such as a magical pony in another dimension) you will always be subject to the limitations of your form and the world in which you live, and morality is primarily an expression of managing these limitations. Thus making it subject to change depending upon a change in environment, (such as if your plumbing was compromised it could suddenly become immoral to give someone a glass of tap water, whereas otherwise it would probably be fine) but is largely founded upon a few common traits hardwired into the species like how getting hurt hurts, or being arbitrarily unfair is unfair.
For whatever reason your post on my Crowley video was marked as spam and I cant approve or reply to it....thanks google
Im not going to fully defend the video as I posted it 2 years ago and I would have to watch it again to see what of my views have changed or what mistakes I would now notice after 2 years but one point I will address is that this is less of an arguement for Moral Anti-Realism (or Aeons of Crowley) existing in the show and more or less educating the viewer on them with an MLP backdrop. Nevermind that I nowadays had considered removing and redoing the Crowley video because of bad errors on my part. Essentially the age of these videos has made me hesitant to defend them because over time I doubt I have the frame of mind or will to defend opinions I may no longer have.
On your note about suffering I did say at the beginning that I was stripping away the shows meta-morality in its writing (which allows for Good vs Evil in obvious terms) and viewing it from a more realistic perspective (where there are no such things as one sided stories most of the time), were it not for this your points might have had more relevance talking about that particular part.
As for the Crowley video your response was probably caused by an error on my part when I horribly oversimplified the Aeon of Horus among other things. The first thing is that like this video it was talking about the shows Meta for sake of teaching a more real life thing to the viewer with MLP as a backdrop. However when it comes to the Aeons occuring in sequence this is something out of necessity, despite how the concepts are described the idea that you can "start" with the Aeon of Horus and "end" with Isis doesnt make sense when you take what the Aeons are into account. Its like saying that you dont know physics but know the Theory of Relativity.
Though I suppose after all this time and with everything said those were the only two notes I wanted to comment on.
This isnt to say I dont enjoy your responses though, I like someone who is willing to think about these things replying to me.
such is life, though it is more effective to condense it into a single thread.
It would still seem odd to argue about the "existence" or "presence" of morality when taking away it's primary feature of how it is defined, which is as a method of dealing with everyone's physical/mental limitations within a group by comparing benefit to harm. by which case the argument should become less if it exists at all, and more the extent by which it can be flexible within a species or community, how legitimate their reasoning for it is, how extreme of circumstances would be required to go against it by individuals who subscribe to a particular system of morality, or in the case of dissimilar enough beings, (whether their dissimilarity is supernatural like a spirit that exists outside of many limitations, or more mental/physical like comparing a mouse to a human) whether or not a particular morality would be applicable to them.
But to take morality and then ask if something is a moral universe by removing it's reasons for morality, isn't really to ask if it's a moral universe, it's to ask if it's a pointlessly arbitrary universe that conforms to your universes moral standards, where things would still act the same as the universe you're familiar with but without any cause-effect influence or prior understanding that could influence a decision. A "will the pot of water boil without any impetus to do so/will the baby recite Mozart before it learns how to speak" argument.
So I still find the argument heavily flawed, especially when the simple answer is that "while many forms of morality are inherent to humans and human-like beings, and the morality's we're familiar with are largely based on these things, most do have the capacity to ignore them, and not every from of morality is inherent and as such would need the context and tools to learn them."
and I figured the aeons were too oversimplified in your other video when I saw in another video you implying them to be more a measure of a society's capacity to be manipulative.
Though it would still seem to have a lot of additional traits to each aeon which would be largely arbitrary, and I wonder how the ponies cutiemarks would come into play, as they seemed very horus-like based on the definition you provided, hence my suggestion that the ponies would begin with independent focused spiritual revelations of destiny, ability, understanding, and purpose, ones for which humans in comparison can often only achieve late in life if at all, and end with collective-focused understanding and mastery.
Wait! I think I've figured out my problem with the argument of the video.
It's not genuinely a nature of morality argument.
It's a tool of finding the supernatural. Of being able to recognize the arbitrary and unexplainable (or "miracles") within a universe and try to use it as proof to justify the assumption of the presence supernatural meddling.
And you were applying it to a TV show made by human beings, full of human flaws, and questionable human morality. So of course it would fail in a number of instances. because the "deity/s" are a bunch of cartoon writers and animators and junk.
I should probably make clearer what the video's intention was because it was not quite spelled out, namely I should've made it more clear that one way I judge morality is by integrity, which is to say you have to be consistent with a belief - if its bad for the "bad guy" its not suddenly okay for you just because you're the "good guy" and that was what it was rating. It would show the heroines as inconsistent because of the act of mind control and in and of it self being used and then celebrated in one context but demonized in another.
Also you are confused on your semantics when it comes to the word morality, your definition would classify as a school of thought in morality but is not "morality", which any dictionary will tell you is simply a code of conduct.
When it comes to the idea of striping away the morality to the point of pointless arbirtrary-ness my view of it should be that the universe should still be consistent in its morals even without an author saying "They won because Good" and that a true moral realist shouldn't break their principles for it. If they do then what with is a morality that even they can break or ignore? Its a might-makes-right scenario, nevermind that if you can ignore it and still succeed then It wasn't real outside of you to begin with.
Your simple explanation has some flaws as well. Again it seems as though you've confused something which would be classified as a morality with morality itself - which is again just "A code of conduct or "right" conduct". Another thing you seem to be implying is that a human can't truely grasp a pony's perspective, but this would render the entire show's point moot, this is an aesop show meant to mimic real-ish scenarios so that the morals at the end would be of value to the target audience, it would be rendered worthless if the writers and meta truely meant it as a position no person could relate to.
Im mostly convinced this discussion is miscommunication, nevermind that you're on a video that is still 2 years out of date in regards to my current views. As for the Aeons I have again said that I don't adhere to the definitions that I used to so im not even going to bother with those. But I do hope this clears things up, but again given that im not necessarily up to defending something so old this may be my last response, IDK, have a nice day either way ^^
Watching this video and when started talking about order and chaos. It reminded alot of the ancient alien races the Vorlons and the Shadows from the Sci-fi show Babylon 5: Both sides wanted every other species to evolve, but both had vastly different means of obtaining it.
The vorlons wanted to control everyone and secretly altered the other races see them as the deities of whatever religion they happened to be a part of: Humans saw them as angels for example. Basically they wanted order so much that they almost dictated the path which younger life should evolve: To be more like them.
The Shadows however wanted to promote evolution through conflict. to make the other races fight each other. This is basically a case of: survival of the fittest. But they did this because they saw the weak as imperfect, not too different from the vorlons thinking those that don't follow their rules as imperfect.
I'll try to explain this next part without too many spoilers: Both sides of this argument were wrong, but both were so sure that their point was right that they declared war on each other with humanity and other races caught in the middle, In fact they were so in the middle that the Shadows and vorlons were slaughtering the other races because they had contact with one or the other.
Humanity finally managed to call both of them out on their BS and finally they both realized they were both wrong and left the galaxy to allow life to evolve on their own.
I recently started watching lighting Bliss and thats how I found you. I found this topic interesting since it relates back to Order V Chaos. One thing I want more shows to do, not just MLP is to present a story in a more Neutral context, where both sides are either wrong or right.
I hate it when everything becomes one-sided simply because a show is trying to spread a message, this is something that can make the story suffer because one side comes on too strong in its argument. Hell MLP is often ten times better than, say: Star trek at message shows and Star Trek has a much bigger demographic. Says something about the writers doesn't it? XD
@Tenacitybrit Oh yes, I agree though I like that there is something that portrays one point of view, its art, but I prefer when something else in society exists to portray a contrary message properly.
Yeah, I mention Star trek because apart from DS9 and to a lesser extent TNG It usally has a very black and white view of this kind of thing. Now let me make it clear: I DO like star trek, its just I don't think the show likes me that much.
But there was the interesting episode of Voyager where they find another star-ship captained by Ransom in the delta quadrant, they are using less than ethical means to travel home. Basically they built a super engine that uses the bodies of aliens for fuel.
Captain Janeway sees this as nothing but murder while Captain Ransom claims he had no-choice but to build this engine otherwise his crew would die-slow deaths since their ship was in such bad shape.
Whats interesting is this: Janeway becomes more and more obsessed as the episode goes on about stopping Ransom from killing more aliens that she starts endangering her own crew. Ransom meanwhile is starting to regret building this engine and eventually blows his own ship up to stop his crew (Who stopped listening to him) from harming more aliens.
Now I know being a kids show MLP will almost certainly never explore a topic this dark, but its an interesting theory all the same.
@Tenacitybrit Yeah it brings forth ideas from fics, where these topics are explored well, still i love when fair shakes are given within something because I prefer fairer discussions where the author is aware and not blinded. Even if they pic a side.
Yeah me too, it also makes you think of 'What-if' scenarios more often when you keep an open-mind which are always more fun when two sides have equal opportunity to present their case.
I can never stand those who dismiss topics or items from a conversation just because it conflicts with their world view or because even just talking about it makes them feel dirty to even bring it up.
For example I could question why people get more upset over a dog dying in a film than a person dying, even if the dog had only a minute of screen time while the person could have been there since the start. Then I'd get labeled as an animal hater or something for even questioning it.
@Tenacitybrit Oh indeed, I have a low patience and intellectual pity for people who only see things in binary and too emotionally, blessed be the man who can actually see everything from a spectrum of perspectives.
Proud to meet someone else who is more aware then the others ^w^
Oh wow thanks! Oh just one more thing, even though its off topic: I've never actually heard of occultism (I'm sorry if thats the wrong way to refer to it.) So what exactly is it and how does it influence your OC's persona since to me anyway yours is one of the more interesting OC's.
I mean come on you're a demon in pony form thats the most original thing i've seen in the brony fandom so far (Barring Silver quill's hippogriff OC maybe but even then hes still second in my book.)
Thank you so much ^^ and to answer your question Occult merely means "hidden" I suppose you might say it is about the experience of being and the gathering of that knowledge and seeking that experience
Though that can lead to some interesting changes in you for it, the answers you find aren't easily communicated (some of them cant be) and you adopt some thought processes or motivations that others may find somewhat mysterious or alien, its riveting if you ask me x3
That is so interesting, I mean I have a mild case of Aspergers syndrome but its enough to alter the way I think and see the world. Llke in the 'Dog death vs person death' example that I tend to not care too much when something holds a lot of emotional weight for most people, mostly be cause I don't see why people can't just simply talk about something in a purely logical manner.
Although from what you just told me this Occult thing seems very interesting and straight up my alley. Where do you suggest I look for more info on this?
Oh I have aspergers too, though now a days people tend to not be aware unless they are told of it.
Most of what you'd find in occultism is also the practice of things such as magick, divination and so forth, I found out a lot of this from a long list of books. Though some concepts you may want to look at are hermeticism, Thelema, the Qaballah and perhaps some stuff on alchemy. There's no real set starting point however, and what I have accumulated over time.
More recent context from Starlight's intro makes it even more dangerous than "harmony versus chaos" by saying "the status quo versus other possibilities".
Interesting video; I enjoyed it. My own perspective is one that I'm unsure has a name. My perspective on morality is that, if it exists, it's purely subjective. However, I prefer to follow my own laws, believing that morality is what you make of it. Everyone has their own point of view, so why not their own set of morals and ethics? To me, there is no overarching moral compass that should be followed, only points that most of them agree on. And those points change with itme, as the perspective of humanity evolves. There is no true right answer, in opinion, just as there is no true wrong one, in regards to morality and ethics. Hope I was clear enough with my points to be understood: I don't often vocalize my opinions...
Interesting perspective. One thing I would disagree with is the way you discuss Harmony as being on one side of an ideological coin. This isn't a valid point, I would argue. Harmony is a neutral quality. It is not opposed to anything. It just is. Harmony does not have much to do with the conflicts in MLP. Most of the major adventure arc conflicts have to do with Order vs Chaos.
Harmony can't really be singled out independently from other things, as Harmony encompasses all of existence. All ideas, concepts, and things fall under the umbrella of Harmony, because Harmony is the way of the Universe. It just is. In short, I am primarily disagreeing with the use of Harmony as if it is on one side of a moral coin. It is neither here nor there. It just is.
I am willing to bet that our disagreement is more based on linguistics than any actual disagreement, the definition of harmony you appear to be using seems different than the one I was using. I was using the term to refer to relations mostly (as in agreeable or in accord, as opposed to disagreements), admittedly I was using as synonymous with Order, though I am aware of the difference.
I don't see the problem used to describe a side of morality, as the definition I was using is more than applicable to it (Copy-pasted from Dictionary.com: agreement; accord; harmonious relations.).
That's the annoying thing about examining Harmony and Ballance. Semantics do matter in the discussion of Harmony. In the sense I was using it, it isn't necessarily agreement. It is Harmony in the philosophical sense- of all things coexisting side by side.
Interesting video. Two thoughts occur to me: Firstly, it's never been remotely clear what the Elements of Harmony actually do. If it was a mind-wipe, surely it would've affected Discord the same way as Nightmare Moon? Secondly, Discord is ultimately tormenting people and driving them mad for kicks, as opposed to the Equestrian's preference for helping individuals nurture their potential in pursuit of their passions, so you can't really argue that they're equal and opposite philosophies.
In regards to the first point, I acknowledge it is unclear, but my point regarding that was that a mind-wipe had occurred regardless, and it was considered to be a good thing. As for Discord, it depends on how you are viewing him, in the context of this video it was his affinity for and desire to create disharmony and chaos vs the harmony and order espoused by ponies.
I would say that in Order vs Chaos, it is all about execution, of course Chaos probably does not work when taken to an extreme, but neither does Order. As for Windigos, that is merely how they operate, I could easily make an argument that Love is just as dangerous because changelings exist, for example.
@***** I would describe myself as an Isorropist- someone who believes in the merit of Harmony & Balance. And in my studies of Harmony and Balance (and for the record, I would posit that both of these things are morally neutral) Order and Chaos come to discussion quite often. And the conclusion I always reach is that Order and Chaos both have their place. Both are needed for a complete existence, as one cannot exist without the other. That being said, both are essential for the complex system of reality to work.
This is an interesting discussion, and agree on the whole that anti realism fits well with the mlp universe.
However I do have an issue with anti-realism itself. U admitted yourself that the position comes down to pure subjectivity, such that no moral position is any more right than wrong. But this is just nihilism!
By saying that there is no reason to assign moral value to anything accept via subjectivity you are saying there is no such things as moral value. Thus the position of anti-realism in morality is contradictory, claiming morals both exist and don't exist.
In other words if u want to maintain anti-realism in mlp (or at all) u must instead accept nihilism as it's logical conclusion.
I don't know if I'm moral or anti realist as I just believe what I see and experience. Also knowing this, I'm gonna guess that Feeling pinkie keen made you angry in a way.
Nice review. I'd like to see chaos take over from harmony in Equestria eventually if only to show that Equestria is subject to the same laws of thermodynamics as us.
Even better, come up with some new ones, or just slightly different laws of thermodynamic.
Also I think that the Princess's aren't against chaos per say but against the "harmful" extremes of ether chaos or order, as both order and change are needed to make Harmony. The.princess's could be ether anti-nihilist -cosmicism (in the sense of if there are no gods or souls/after-life then make both come true with magic/tech).or leader-sage utilitarianism.
I see them as ether utilitarian or Ethical Altruisic Sage-Goddess Queens.
This New Meta Sucks (UgzVlO8MPufMmVIDEFF4AaABAg)
First thing to come up when u google moral anti realist, okay, this is epic
Herman Cillo (UgwQRNwHmRtEUfs_Fyl4AaABAg)
By this measure, I am a moral realist.
There is good and evil, and there is objective morality. There are some grey areas, especially when there is no clean option.
ArcannaRyu (Ugiw02FIP0dMTXgCoAEC)
Feels weird that you would exclude "harm" or "suffering" from the argument.
You keep saying "just because" like it all exists within a vacuum free of consequences of actions, or the presence of inbuilt, consistent reactions to said consequences that'd be essentially the same across all parties involved.
after all, let's not forget the golden rule upon which most of morality is based.
The acceptance that there are things that are unpleasant or harmful, that you yourself have experienced such things that you didn't like, and that you can understand others having this same capacity to not like or desire certain things, and out of this understanding you choose to show respect for others and try to avoid subjecting others to harm or delighting in their suffering.
neither harmony or disharmony are neutral when suffering comes into play, since due to innate biology, suffering has degree's of severity. you can solidly say one kind of suffering is greater than another.
so compare the suffering of one individual being trapped in stone for a thousand years, to hundreds of thousands of entities of similar emotional and mental capacity being tortured for a thousand years.
You could try to ask why one is worse than the other, but in general the only way to come to the conclusion that they are equal is to make the nihilistic argument that they're equal because everything is equally meaningless.
to make the argument that since something is not absolutely black or white, severity therefore no longer matters, is flawed when there are explicit, inherent, biologically driven limitations or goals in play.
Also it wasn't Celestia who ordered the mind wiping "reformation spell", that was actually something Twilight did of her own accord and against the wishes of Celestia.
Celestia's plan was fluttershy.
And i know you've made the argument that fluttershys plan was emotional manipulation
but fact is, friendship doesn't exist in a vacuum either.
all deliberate social interaction is conditional. in fact nothing humans ever do is ever truly unconditional. There are too many factors in play for something to ever really be unconditional and entirely free of consequence, such is the nature of temporary beings who exist within a wide set of limitations.
Like a grandmothers love of their grand kids is often passed off as unconditional, when what they really mean is, no matter how much of a little shit they might be the grandma will probably still love them.
But the grandmas love is still conditional, because guess what, alzheimer's disease has kicked in, and she doesn't even know the grandkids exist anymore, or what a grandkid even is.
"Unconditional" love gone.
and there's a difference between emotionally beating someone into submission and getting them to understand that when you break someones trust, you no longer have their trust.
And if you value the fun and emotional support gained by that person making themselves vulnerable and risking interacting with you without aggression or fear, then you have to abide by the conditions of creating that environment.
Just like how you don't try to grow a plant in a pot full of weed killer then blame the plant for the sin of denying you it's beautiful foliage and tasty fruit when you put so much effort into watering it every day and are in desperate need of the fruit it once had the potential to create, but now can't cus you ignored one of the most basic conditions of growing a plant (condition being don't try to grow a plant in a pot full of plant poison dumbass).
Although if you actually wanted to further that train of thought, you'd have to say less about how fluttershy did a manipulative thing, and more ask if it was immoral to introduce discord to the concept of friendship at all if it meant having to go through the experience of what it's like when your inconsiderate behavior causes you to lose a friend.
Anyway point is, so long as you exist as a human or human-equivalent (such as a magical pony in another dimension) you will always be subject to the limitations of your form and the world in which you live, and morality is primarily an expression of managing these limitations.
Thus making it subject to change depending upon a change in environment, (such as if your plumbing was compromised it could suddenly become immoral to give someone a glass of tap water, whereas otherwise it would probably be fine) but is largely founded upon a few common traits hardwired into the species like how getting hurt hurts, or being arbitrarily unfair is unfair.
Rose Vidler (UgjSgjK5VCgtJngCoAEC)
well adlest i was not the only one thinking this
Tenacitybrit (Ugj0lLZAKWL_mXgCoAEC)
Watching this video and when started talking about order and chaos. It reminded alot of the ancient alien races the Vorlons and the Shadows from the Sci-fi show Babylon 5: Both sides wanted every other species to evolve, but both had vastly different means of obtaining it.
The vorlons wanted to control everyone and secretly altered the other races see them as the deities of whatever religion they happened to be a part of: Humans saw them as angels for example. Basically they wanted order so much that they almost dictated the path which younger life should evolve: To be more like them.
The Shadows however wanted to promote evolution through conflict. to make the other races fight each other. This is basically a case of: survival of the fittest. But they did this because they saw the weak as imperfect, not too different from the vorlons thinking those that don't follow their rules as imperfect.
I'll try to explain this next part without too many spoilers: Both sides of this argument were wrong, but both were so sure that their point was right that they declared war on each other with humanity and other races caught in the middle, In fact they were so in the middle that the Shadows and vorlons were slaughtering the other races because they had contact with one or the other.
Humanity finally managed to call both of them out on their BS and finally they both realized they were both wrong and left the galaxy to allow life to evolve on their own.
Twilord (UggkJn53CvOtA3gCoAEC)
More recent context from Starlight's intro makes it even more dangerous than "harmony versus chaos" by saying "the status quo versus other possibilities".
fallen wish enchantix (UgjJjLvU3XU3IngCoAEC)
interesting
legendofzeldarules44 (Uggv9qi7nkWxqXgCoAEC)
you deserve way more subscribers
Marion Ette (UgiE_2f82-AP0XgCoAEC)
Interesting video; I enjoyed it. My own perspective is one that I'm unsure has a name. My perspective on morality is that, if it exists, it's purely subjective. However, I prefer to follow my own laws, believing that morality is what you make of it. Everyone has their own point of view, so why not their own set of morals and ethics? To me, there is no overarching moral compass that should be followed, only points that most of them agree on. And those points change with itme, as the perspective of humanity evolves. There is no true right answer, in opinion, just as there is no true wrong one, in regards to morality and ethics. Hope I was clear enough with my points to be understood: I don't often vocalize my opinions...
GuthixGodOfBalance1 (UghG6pjqdMBHyHgCoAEC)
Interesting perspective. One thing I would disagree with is the way you discuss Harmony as being on one side of an ideological coin. This isn't a valid point, I would argue. Harmony is a neutral quality. It is not opposed to anything. It just is. Harmony does not have much to do with the conflicts in MLP. Most of the major adventure arc conflicts have to do with Order vs Chaos.
Harmony can't really be singled out independently from other things, as Harmony encompasses all of existence. All ideas, concepts, and things fall under the umbrella of Harmony, because Harmony is the way of the Universe. It just is. In short, I am primarily disagreeing with the use of Harmony as if it is on one side of a moral coin. It is neither here nor there. It just is.
Brent Ramsten (UghrFbkoy75f8XgCoAEC)
i would hardly say that pinkie pie is disharmonious.
or has ever been for that matter.
SoddingUsername (Ugj2-_Lay-I05XgCoAEC)
Interesting video. Two thoughts occur to me: Firstly, it's never been remotely clear what the Elements of Harmony actually do. If it was a mind-wipe, surely it would've affected Discord the same way as Nightmare Moon? Secondly, Discord is ultimately tormenting people and driving them mad for kicks, as opposed to the Equestrian's preference for helping individuals nurture their potential in pursuit of their passions, so you can't really argue that they're equal and opposite philosophies.
Tijana Jesse (Uggy_fCsGxmGNngCoAEC)
What about the windigos? If everyone doesn't get along, the world gets frozen. And it might be harder to get along under chaos. Just an idea.
Nightsphere theGnostic (UgiNhMNG1JlimXgCoAEC)
Love the new look!
This is an interesting discussion, and agree on the whole that anti realism fits well with the mlp universe.
However I do have an issue with anti-realism itself. U admitted yourself that the position comes down to pure subjectivity, such that no moral position is any more right than wrong. But this is just nihilism!
By saying that there is no reason to assign moral value to anything accept via subjectivity you are saying there is no such things as moral value. Thus the position of anti-realism in morality is contradictory, claiming morals both exist and don't exist.
In other words if u want to maintain anti-realism in mlp (or at all) u must instead accept nihilism as it's logical conclusion.
TheNonCaringCosmos dingus (UggvaXc5SflSBHgCoAEC)
hey dude happy 100 subscribers ya dingus
AnimeWolfgamer (UggBl0llp4YKy3gCoAEC)
I don't know if I'm moral or anti realist as I just believe what I see and experience. Also knowing this, I'm gonna guess that Feeling pinkie keen made you angry in a way.
Radio Free New England (UgiovjzeMZgNgHgCoAEC)
Another great video. Your philosophy videos never fail to make me question my own philosophy, which I don't really do enough.
CloudCuckooCountry (UgiMfnW0cfz8xHgCoAEC)
Nice review.
I'd like to see chaos take over from harmony in Equestria eventually if only to show that Equestria is subject to the same laws of thermodynamics as us.