[extropy-chat] Euphamism and Reality - a polite response to Mr. Paatsch. The Problem of Pain.

[John-C-Wright at sff.net]

I should start, as is apparently my wont, with an apology: this reply is tardy
because I did not realize Mr. Paatsch had written me back. If the conversation
has moved on to nobler topics, forgive me for returning to a prior point, but I
do not wish to have my silence make him cross, as it has apparently done in
times past. 

Mr. Paatsch has done me the honor of writing; I must do him the courtesy of
responding candidly:

Q: To call an embryo a child is to beg the important ethical
question of what status that human entity ought have by
presuming to answer it in the formation of the question. 
That is why I see it as biased or misleading to use the
term child. 

A: This is well said, and I understand your point. I disagree with the
conclusion: people can discuss capital punishment or euthanasia without
insisting that these people be called monsters or vegetables. As far as I can
tell, it does not dispose of the question to call the entity in the womb a
child; if it is a child with no brain activity, the argument can be made, with
no violence to the English language, to say its right to life has not yet
vested. We can have a perfectly ration discussion on that point whether we call
the entity a child or not. 

In any case, the world “child” means what it means in the English language. I
used the word correctly, as the dictionary confirms. Unless you call the
authority of the dictionary into question, there is no further ground for
dispute. You cannot claim I am using the word in a fashion alien to its common
use.  

In the alternate, even if the use were prejudicial, that is, entirely
dispositive of the case, you would need to show the use incorrect before you
could level your accusation. 

Suppose that if you and I were debating a proof in geometry, and I put forth the
theorem of Pythagoras. Suppose you realized that the theorem of Pythagoras is a
conclusion forced from the definition of a Euclidian right triangle, as well as
the definitions, common notions, and axioms of Euclidian geometry. There no
merit to the argument that my defining “right triangle” in a certain way forces
one to the conclusion. The argument must be on whether the entity under
discussion has the properties of a right triangle whether we call it that or not. 

My argument, given in detail elsewhere on this list, is that a father’s duty to
preserve his children from harm, and see to their health and upbringing,
logically excludes taking acts which kill the child, whether done at the point
when the child is a mere mass of cells with no recognizable eternal human
characteristics, or later. The argument does not change if we change the terms
in which it is cast. 

Finally, your word use here confirms my use. An “embryo” is a stage of
development through which a child passes. You cannot logically call the entity
under discussion an embryo without also allowing that is it a child; the one set
includes the other (Embryo being a stage of child development, ergo all embryos
are children; not all children are embryos). To say an “embryo” is not a “child”
is as if to say that an “adolescent” is not a “human being.” Adolescence is a
stage of human development.  

Q: I found your recourse to a dictionary to justify your use
of the word to be disingenuous and potentially deceitful
given that Samantha and Damien had already objected 
to the term. 

A: Are you sure you mean to use the word “deceitful” in this sentence? Deceit
implies that I have a secret knowledge which I am keeping from my victims. In
this case, the knowledge is public. Anyone can look in a dictionary. How can
looking in a dictionary to confirm the proper use of a word be a deceit? Look
for yourself if you don’t believe me. 

Notice that I corrected my use of the word “slay” which appeared in the original
letter near the beginning of this digression. There, the dictionary confirmed
that I was using the word incorrectly: I published a retraction. Was my recourse
to the dictionary “potentially deceitful” in the first case but not in the second? 

Q: You seemed to be trying to use your skill
with words to steal a position and stack a debate rather
than to make your case on its merit.

A: Good grief. Thank you for the compliment, but I fear my skill with words is
less than it should be. My argument stands or falls by its logic, not in how it
is presented. 

Q: A general dictionary definition of the word child is the
wrong tool to establish the meaning of the word child….

A: This contradicts itself and needs no comment from me. 

Q: as you intended to stretch it and you ought to have
damn well known it.

A: If I were stretching the definition of the word, that means I would be taking
the meaning of the word and applying to a context where it is not properly set,
not in the contemplation of the average use of the word. The average use of the
word is reflected in the dictionary. That is what dictionaries are. 

The first and primary use in the first dictionary I consulted was “an unborn or
recently born human being.” The fourth use was “the immediate progeny of human
parents”; the seventh was “product or result.” 

For the logic of my argument to run, I need only be allowed the seventh
definition: if a father has a duty to protect his products until fully
developed, he cannot fulfill that duty if he destroys that product in an early
stage of development. Hence, even if the duty obtains in the later stage of the
development, the nature of cause and effect requires him to take care to protect
the early stages nonetheless. Q.E.D. 

I was actually surprised the first definition was utterly unambiguous. I assume
other dictionaries might have a different first definition, but no one was
skilled enough in debate to quote any authority in contradistinction to the
authority I quoted. Hence, we have one expert witness on my side, and nothing on
your side, except a restatement of the case you seek to prove. I would love to
go before a jury with a case like this. 

Q: If you thought you were the average mug American that needed to consult a
dictionary to determine the meaning of the word child you would not be sending a
post to this list headed "Famous author self destructs in public".

A: If I had titled it “man who would like to be a famous author someday has a
swelled head” would that convince you that my flight to the dictionary was
sincere? I will point out that I did not use the word “slay” correctly. I
actually got the definition wrong. And you need only look at my misspelling of
“euphemism” which heads this thread to note that I should fly to the dictionary
more often. 

Also keep in mind that authors, famous or not, are the employees and servants of
average American mugs, not their superiors. If you buy my book, that means I
work for you. It’s like throwing coins in the hat of a street clown. The
argument stands or falls by its logic, not by who makes the argument. 

Q: (responding to  “as I said, I have not the patience to debate the point”) Let
me be very clear on this point. I don't regard you as someone who I or anyone
else here has an obligation to humor or to be deferential to.

A: Whoa, whoa! I never said anything of the kind! Far be it from me to expect
deference from anyone. 

I apologize for the way I phrased this comment: on second reading, I find (to my
surprise) that it certainly sounds arrogant, and so I cannot blame you for
reading it that way. My meaning was humbler.

I meant only that definitional arguments, by their very nature, are futile. Even
for the most skilled debater in the world, once you look up what a disputed word
means, the dispute is over. Once you look in a dictionary, you know the
definition. End of story. I cannot continue the debate even if I wanted to:
there is nothing more to say. 

I am not actually impatient, as the existence of this letter shows; that was
merely an unfortunate turn of phrase. 

Q: So far I am not greatly impressed with what I have
seen of John C Wright who claims to have been visited
by "the Holy Paraclete (sic)" and thinks that morality can
be objectively grounded in a world view that includes a 
the christian God, (when I asked you to give your 
explanation of the problem of evil you declined saying
that that had been addressed by others more capable 
than you - you dodged the hard personal question), so
in short I don't care about trying your patience.

A: Hmm? That spelling of Paraclete is correct, and the term was used correctly
in the sentence. I just flew to my dictionary to confirm. Why did you (sic) the
use? Just curious. 

As for “dodging the hard personal question”, I think you misunderstood my
meaning, and I surely misunderstood yours. I thought you were asking about the
nature of the standard Christian doctrine, a question others are better
qualified to answer than am I. For example:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060652969/103-3529136-9475828?v=glance
and http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104902.htm. Both these men are smarter than
me, and can answer better. 

But, here, you characterize it as a personal question. Clearly I can answer
better than anyone what it is that I personally believe. Now, mine is not the
normal Christian belief, and I so I was slightly reluctant to espouse
unorthodoxy; further I was slightly reluctant to further impose upon the
Extropians by discussing theology, which is a topic outside the scope of what
this forum is meant to address. However, because you have called my honor into
question, I must answer appear with my seconds and answer the challenge. 

First, the problem of pain involves not merely Christianity, but any religion
postulating a benevolent omnipotence. Second, even profound theologians confess
the matter to be mysterious at its root. No one pretends we have a clear or
satisfactory answer. That said, we can outline a general conclusion: 

The problem is that a benevolent omnipotence could not coexist in a world of
pain: if the pain exists, either the Almighty lacks the power to remove it,
which argues Him not omnipotent; or lacks the willingness to remove it, which
argues him not benevolent. 

Arguments in opposition often postulate a limit to Omnipotence: namely, that the
pain cannot be cured save in a certain way, and therefore cannot be abolished
immediately.

Arguments in opposition seek to prove that the world’s pain is either (1)
illusionary (2) medicinal or (3) judicial. 

The first response has the flavor of Buddhism or Christian Science, which says
that attachment to desire (in the case of Buddhism) or moral error (in the case
of Christian Science) render us prone to an illusion from which we can wake. 

The second response has the flavor of theosophy or New Age mysticism, which says
that, before birth, we volunteered or consented to suffer the pain of the world
in order to achieve spiritual growth, this growth being unavailable without pain. 

The third response is the mainstream Christian doctrine: pain is the penalty for
our sinful natures. Not every act of sin triggers a specific response of pain,
nor is the pain distributed evenly; but the general condition of Man, as a
fallen being, renders him and his children, vulnerable to the caprice of
fortune, sickness and mortality. The Hindu view is similar, but placing the
original sin not with Adam, but with each individual in a former life, who earns
a Karmic debt, for which current suffering must atone.

The last two responses taken together argue that the pain is legitimate, and
hence, endurable. 

My own opinion is a combination of all three responses. As does the pagan Stoic,
I believe pain exists in the judgment only: that is, a man does not consider
pain a bad thing in and of itself, but only if he additionally consents to judge
it as bad. This is a matter within the control of his will. The will controls
the faculties of the mind, including the consent of judgment. Unlike the Stoic,
I believe divine grace is needed to achieve this dispassionate state of mind.
Compare, for example, the stoic nobility of the death of Socrates with the
ecstasy of the martyrs. I hold that Christians, by the grace of God, can do what
Stoics propose to do, but cannot, and overcome the illusion of pain. 

I believe in something like original sin or Karmic debt. Whether it is literal
or metaphorical I cannot say, but even a cursory examination of the world around
me convinces me that the Spirit of Man (if not the body) is fallen from a high
estate, not evolved upward from a low one: whatever the origin of the nature of
sin is, it is clear from a cursory examination that all men indulge in it, to a
greater degree or less (myself included).  If fallen, then no matter what their
original dignity, the spirit of man must suffer, and even omnipotence cannot
save him from himself against his own consent. The fallen live in a world of
misfortune.  

Here is why: logically, creatures either will have total control of their
environment, or else will be prey to fortune and suffer meaningless accidents
because they lack total control. Granting fallen man total control of his
environment would be tantamount to Hell. Just imagine what we would do to each
other if all matter and energy obeyed our each thought. Hence, mercy grants us
less than total control, but this leaves us open to pointless accidents and
suffering that serves no specific judicial or medicinal purpose. It is a
meaningless general suffering brought about as a logical consequence of our
fallen estate.  

That said, some pain, at least, is medicinal. I would still be an atheist had I
not suffered what, to outside observers, looked like a frightening and mortal
ordeal: I had a stroke. I say to outside observers because, oddly enough, that
tribulation was the happiest day of my life. I took no pain killers, no drugs,
but the joy in my heart drove all pain away. During those days, the illusion,
for me, was broken; and, even now, it has less power to do me hurt or cause me
fear than before. 

That said, some pain, at least, is illusionary. Death I hold to be an illusion:
we don’t die. The fear and pain surrounding this great horror of mortality will
vanish like a nightmare upon waking to immortality; and an infinite bliss will
surrounded the blessed souls in the promised life to come. Compared to that, our
current pains will seem small things indeed.

There is a fourth and final answer which is purely mystical. I live in the hope
that, somehow, in a fashion unknown to me, the promise that all tears will be
wiped away, and all harmed healed, shall come to pass. 

I do not expect this answer to be sufficient to convince a skeptic: it is merely
a brief recital of a conclusion to which no supporting proof is given. I offer
it here merely to contradict the slander against my intellectual courage. I do
not dodge questions, although, from time to time, politely, I attempt to spare
people from the torment of listening to me drone on. 

Q: On the contrary you will have to be on your very best behavior
for me to feel that I am not wasting my time talking to
you, or worse, that I might be giving a close minded 
rhetorican and professional pest the tools to spread the
next generation of bullshit to the faithful.

A: One of the more dubious pleasures of talking to Extropians is that, with one
or two shining exceptions, none of you think it odd or rude to halt in the
middle of a philosophical discussion on some topic utterly unrelated to
Christianity, to express your contempt for me, and hatred and malice for my
Church and my faith. It is done all the time, unconsciously, as automatically as
blessing someone when he sneezes. 

The phenomena is a peculiar one and merits study. Myself, I suspect the cause is
supernatural rather than psychological or philosophical. 

I don’t mind. We get points for it, you know. “Blessed are you when men revile
you, and persecute you, and speak all manner of evil against you falsely because
of me.”

However, in terms of logic, the comments are ad Hominem and therefore
irrelevant. They have no persuasive or informative value one way or the other: I
consider them to be throat-clearing, a meaningless noise one makes when one is
at a loss for words. 

That said, I will take your comments to heart, sir, and will endeavor to be on
my best behavior. 

Q: Bollocks. That’s not my argument, you are trying to put
words into my mouth. 

A: You may compare your argument with my comment about what the argument implies
and draw your own conclusion. I believe I am being fair in this case.

Q: If you believe in God you might do well to be careful
of the prohibitions and consequence of bearing false
witness.  

A: Throat-clearing. 

Q: (responding to “Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood to
which unborn human entity my word referred.”) You are guessing that no one
misunderstood it. Whether readers did or not you cannot know. 

A: Excuse me, but is your argument based on the idea that when I used the word
“child” some people reading my words thought I was referring not to the child in
the womb in the hypothetical, but to some other, unrelated child, such as a
cousin or something? 

That's silly.

I think you mean to say that the word I used implied something about the nature
of the entity to which the word referred, an implication not allowed by the
other side of the argument. 

I am pretty safe in my assumption that a reasonable man, reading the English
words I wrote in the order I wrote them, knew to which entity my words referred,
even if there was and is an honest disagreement about the status and nature of
the entity. 

Q: What is clear is that you persisted with a term that others found objectionable. 

A: Certainly. Logic said that their objections were invalid, merely emotional,
unworthy of serious consideration. 

I am slightly embarrassed that honor requires me to continue in this so-called
discussion, where the partisans of Political Correctness have actually achieved
their goal of derailing the original conversation (which was about moral
relativity; abortion was brought up only as a tangential example.) 

The economics of the situation reward such behavior: it is like kicking over a
chessboard when in check. If the partisans of Political Correctness can raise
such a stink over non-meritorious arguments, men of less patience and fortitude
than myself will simply accede to their language-demeaning practices, it not
being worth their time to contest the imposition. Eventually, all men will adopt
Newspeak, and rational criticism of Big Brother will become grammatically
impossible (which is the sole point of Newspeak, after all).

Q: You chose propaganda instead of communication. 

A: I suppose that depends on the meaning of the word. Flying once again to my
dictionary, I find that the primary meaning of the term is “dissemination of
ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an
institution, a cause, or a person.”

Yes. Certainly I was doing that. I was disseminating an idea for the purpose of
helping a cause or a person (in this case, persons like my son, who, until
birth, live without the protection of the law.) 

I think you mean to say that my rhetoric was artificial or dishonest or
something of the sort. I note the irony that you violate the principle of
agnosticism you uttered previously: you are claiming to be able to read my mind,
and discover a dishonest purpose there, but you claim I cannot read the mind of
my readers to understand whether or not I can make myself understood. 

In any case, this is ad Hominem; throat-clearing.

Q: I thought your pretense, even deceit, was to presume to set the record
straight whilst embedding the crookedness within it at a subtler level. 

A: Here you lost me. I am not sure which thing I said this refers to. 

Q: You apologise and pretend to be courteous and deferential frequently.
Frankly, I for one, do not trust that you are sincere.

A: Would you prefer that I were rude to you, you cur? 

Sorry, just kidding. You are not a cur. 

Seriously, rudeness is merely ad Hominem: throat-clearing. It is irrelevant;
pointless. It also slows the conversation, and making discourse it a chore
rather than a pleasure. I am writing a polite answer to your slanders because my
sense of duty requires it, not because I am inclined to. 

I also would like to avoid rudeness because I have never once seen a rude person
convinced by a logical argument. Perhaps it happens, but I have never seen it. I
assume rude people do not have the self-command needed to order their words and
actions in public; my speculation is that they cannot order their thoughts
according to the discipline of logic. When I detect myself being rude (which
happens frequently), that is a signal to me that my reason is trying to abdicate
its government of my soul (which happens frequently). 

It is comically difficult for me, proud as Lucifer himself, to answer childish
insult and slander with good will. But I will not complain: the humility is good
for me. This is one of those medicinal pains of which I spoke earlier. My
arrogance is something larger than Fenrir, the world-destroying wolf bound up
with gossamer. If I don’t feed him, maybe he won’t get any bigger. If I manage
to starve the monster, things might go well for me when Gotterdammerung rolls
around. 

So I am not being polite to please you, or please myself. It is merely a duty. 

Q: I will give you another chance. I am doing that by
writing to you rather than ignoring you.

A: Thank you; I appreciate the courtesy. I hope the above letter satisfies you
as to my bona fides. If not, please keep in mind that we need not agree on every
point (certainly not on so minor a point as terminology) to proceed with a
discussion on topics of mutual interest in other areas. 

John C. Wright