An interesting POV.

I agree only partially though. Why?

Well, in my view, I think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So, indeed, the mind is something greater than the brain. We see this everywhere. Ant/bee colonies, cars, humans, human societies. In fact, everything that is made of more than 1 thing has this feature. I think this is a wonderful thing because it allows for amazing possibilities e.g. an ant colony can be viewed as another organism distinct from the individual ants that compose it. Who knows what such organizing paradigms can achieve. Super-organisms, super-super-organisms and so on.

However, another fact that we can't disregard is that the mind/self/ego is tied inseparably to the brain. There's no evidence whatsoever that shows the mind can exist independently of the brain. So, the notion of a soul, eternal and indestructible, if that's what you're getting at, is still beyond reach.

All the observations you've mentioned are true but they still can't prove, what is to me, the crucial point - that the soul survives death. If that can't be done the soul, immaterial or whatever, is still nothing better than a material soul.

The super-organism (the ant colony) is definitely something greater than the individual ant. Take out one, or two, a few hundred, and the colony still continues to exist. But kill all the ants, and the colony dies with them. There's a difference, agreed, between the individual ant and the colony. But, the difference is not enough for the ant colony to survive the death of all the ants it consists of.

Thanks for the input. There are so many dimensions to these simple statements. You've pointed out one that I didn't think of: men being insulted because women are excluded from the fool class in statement 2: all fools are men. It's a rather narrow view, morally speaking, because it reeks of misogyny. Anyway, thanks for looking into the problem.

Yes, there's a difference between the class of men and men. The former isn't a conscious being, so can't be insulted, while the latter is composed of conscious individual beings, who each can be insulted.

This is new to me. I'd think statement 2 is a lesser insult because men are relieved that others (women, dogs, etc) aren't being insulted since they can't be fools. So, men have the choice of assuming a higher moral ground compared to statement 1. Anyway, have a look at Roke's post here and my reply to it above.

Are you claiming that masochists can't feel any negative feeling because they'd get pleasure from it? — BlueBanana

Yes. Imagine there is such a person X - evil and masochistic. How does/can God punish him?

Pain isn't the only negative feeling there is. God could cause X suffering/sadness/craving for something X can't get. — BlueBanana

It's pain nonetheless. Divine justice, bottomline, is about dispensing pain to evildoers. However, X, the evil masochist, finds pain pleasurable. It doesn't matter how and in what form this pain is delivered. X still derives pleasure.

I like the time angle. We change from moment to moment. So, it makes sense - at one moment X is good and at another X is bad.

However, there's one aspect of morality that prevents such an interepretation viz. responsibility. Responsibility for one's thoughts and actions remain unchanged through time. Hitler, if he were alive now, is still responsible for the crimes he committed 1939-1945.

(Y) :)

I think I found a solution to the paradox.

The problem lies in thinking good and bad are relative concepts. They're not. They're absolute concepts with a clear well-defined boundary. However, within their respective boundaries comparisons can be done i.e. relative relationships arise.

So, Oswald isn't a good man. He's a bad man just as Hitler. However, within the class of bad men, he's ''better'' than Hitler.

I give up. — andrewk

:)

Did you invest in Paradox, Incorporated--that large company that deals in "contrary to fact" statements? — Bitter Crank

:D

A comparison of his good traits and bad traits leaves us with the conclusion that he was much more bad than he was good — Bitter Crank

Does that mean that if Mahatma Gandhi, who preached non-violence (Ahimsa), could've killed just one man and still be considered good? After all he saved millions from oppression.

There's a problem here which I'm unable to pinpoint. Some evil e.g. hate speech seem morally redeemable. Others like murder are unforgivable. Some good like self-sacrifice are high up in the moral landscape while others like donating to charity aren't very laudable. Inherent in these is the comparative nature of morality - you can say that x is morally better than y or worse. But this leads us to the paradox that a certain person (Lee Harvey Oswald) is both a good man and a bad man.

How do moral philosophers solve this problem?

But if you want to keep hunting for the Immobility, then what you will find are paradoxes — Rich

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by immobility. How does that apply to truths? Are you alluding to vagueness? If yes, I agree. The boundary between good and bad is not sharp and exact. That's the reason why the paraodox occurs. There's no absolute good and bad. It's all relative. I wonder what moral philosophers have to say about this.

OK, so Oswald is better than Hitler and you are better than both of them. Again, it's a comparison and not a paradox — Bitter Crank

A comparison that leads to a paradox. I agree with you though. Good and bad are relative terms and not absolute. So, moral status runs through a spectrum, like a rainbow, from extreme depravity (Devil) to ultimate good (God).

Statement 1 is the greater insult because it is the more comprehensive; it insults all men, both individually and as a class. Statement 2 insults all men as a class, but it does not insult all men as individuals. — John

Perhaps in my question lies the answer to many other inquiries. The class doesn't get insulted. It's not a person, although I have certain doubts about it. It's always the undividual who's feelings get hurt.

There is no paradox — Michael

Really? But you haven't been able to deny any of the premises in my argument:
1. All fools are friends
2. All fools are foes
3. No foes are friends

If you can't do so, the paradox holds.

You don't mind if they harm you unintentionally? — andrewk

Well, the general perception seems to be that intent in crimes is a crucial element in deciding the punishment. A simple example in law is the distinction ''death from negligence'' and ''premeditated murder''. Also, ''sorry, it was accidental'' is high up in the world of apologies.

Really? In the trenches in the Great war, Helmut was Fritz's friend on the German side and Bill was Bob's friend on the British side. Yet Helmut and Fritz were Bill and Bob's foes and vice versa — andrewk

Yes, but Fritz wasn't Helmut's foe and friend. Also, Bill wasn't Bob's friend and foe.

No. Bad is bad — Bitter Crank

Exactly. But then how do you make sense of Lee being good (compared to Hitler) and bad (compared to us)? These type of comparisons are done all the time. Words like ''worse'', ''better'', are evidence of this fact.

So, either we're wrong to do comparative analysis in the field of morality or Lee is both good and bad (a moral paradox).

Anyone is free to make any comparisons s/he wishes to. I'm sure there are always lots of opinions on all issues? — Rich

But if you make moral comparisons it leads us to the paradox of Lee being good AND bad.

You're not making any sense — Michael

That's the paradox

You've defined "friend" and "foe" in such a way that they aren't exclusive classes — Michael

I haven't done that. Even if I have, the odd nature of a fool being a friend and foe stands out. It is a paradox.

See above.

But Hitler is a bad man compared to Jesus.

A person can't be a friend and a foe to the same person. That's what I mean

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

All fools are friends doesn't mean that they actually have to be your friends, as in have to eat, talk, play with you. It's simply that they don't harm you intentionally that makes them friends.

All fools are foes doesn't they have to out to get you. It's just the fact that you can defeat them easily that makes them ''good'' foes. Anyway, the phrase ''A sucker is born every minute'' shows that people are always looking for the next fool to cheat and that's a inimical relationship.

So, you can't deny any of the original premises.

You have a point but...

Can I praise and love Hitler because, well, he's good(!!!) compared to the Devil?

Any fool is a good friend because a fool will not harm you intentionally: All fools are friends

Any fool is a ''good'' foe because a fool is easy to defeat: All fools are foes

Friends and foes are exclusive classes: No friends are foes

Can you deny any of these premises? If you can specify please.

Can you deny that Lee is good compared to Hitler?
No. So, Lee is good.

Can you deny that Lee is bad compared to us?
No. So, Lee is bad.

So, Lee is good AND Lee is bad.

That's a paradox because good and bad are exclusive classes.

Your solution has merit though. Can you try and be clearer. Thanks

But you can't reject any of the premises. They are all true

It's a Venn diagram, which is what you asked for. — andrewk

Your diagram allows for:

1. Some fools are not friends
2. Some fools are not foes

Both 1 and 2 contradict the truths of

All fools are friends
All fools are foes

The above are undeniable. See the post above.

So, the Venn diagram is flawed.

A, B, and C can't all be true, as that entails a contradiction. — Michael

Exactly. How do you solve it?

You can't deny that a fool is a ''good'' friend. He'll not harm you intentionally. Which means: All fools are friends.

You can't deny that a fool is a ''good'' enemy. He's stupid and in fact, if you're his/her foe, all you'll have to do is wait until he commits a fatal mistake. Which means: All fools are foes.

We also know No friends are foes. You can't deny that fools and foes are mutually exclusive classes.

A contradiction naturally follows. That's the paradox.

You're obviously going to get a contradiction if you start with contradictory premises — Michael

A) All fools are friends
B) All fools are foes
C) No friends are foes

A, B and C are true

We get the conclusions:

D) No fools are friends
E) No fools are foes

A and D can't both be true. They can both be false:
F) Some fools are not friends. But F contradicts A.

B and E can't both be true. They can both be false: G) Some fools are foes. But G contradicts E.

Good advice

Thanks for diagramming the content of my argument. Note, it's not drawn in standard form re categorical logic. Anyway:

Argument 1
All fools are friends
No friends are foes
So,
A) No fools are foes

Argument 2
All fools are foes
No friends are foes
So,
B) No fools are friends

A) No fools are foes means
C) It is false that Some fools are foes
B) No fools are friends means
D) It is false that Some fools are friends

But we know that:
E) Some fools are foes
F) Some fools are friends

C and E : contradiction
D and F : contradiction
look above

A fool is a ''good'' friend and a ''good'' enemy. It's not a ''can'' issue.

Please draw a Venn diagram.

I'm talking about ALL fools

But no one's saying that the same individual can be both a friend and a foe. — Michael Ossipoff

But...

A fool is both a ''good'' friend and a foe. A fool is both at the same time. That's not possible because no friends are foes.

So you prefer to remain vague? — Reformed Nihilist

But the matter of insults, the response to them, are vague. Vagueness comes with the territory. I don't know how precise we can make the perception of insults.

You said statement 1 based on ''all'' men being labelled fools. I showed that statement 2 is also about ''all'' men. You didn't reply after that.

What do you mean by a "bigger" insult? — Reformed Nihilist

How do you see the difference between ''like'' and ''love'', between ''dislike'' and ''hate'', between ''Abraham Lincoln'' and ''Hitler''? I appeal to that sense of discrimination.

I'm looking for something simpler.

A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to a self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion. — Wikipedia

A friend is not a foe and the converse is true.

So, when a fool is both a "good" friend and foe, there's a paradox because friend and foe are mutually exclusive classes. There can't be a person who's both a friend and a foe. So, where do we place the fool. Please construct a Venn diagram to understand the paradox. The overlap area between the friend class and foe class is empty. So, no member of the fool class can occupy that region. Hence, the paradox.

Yes, but friend and foe are contradictory.

I think human relationship is a spectrum between love(friend) and hate(foe). A fool has to constantly live with the contradiction: friend AND foe to all. How does the poor guy make sense of his relationships?

What should a fool think when he meets someone? Friend/Foe? Which is the best strategy to follow (for a fool)? To avoid everyone or embrace everyone?

Ok but it's still not clear which statement's your choice and why.

So unless you are going to set up specific criteria by which to judge the "bigness" of an insult, then all is left is pointless semantic games. — Reformed Nihilist

Well, what do you suggest? What criteria do you think works here?

Thank you. You created another paradox but you didn't solve the fool's predicament.

(Y)

Existence is a property. One simple reason can be drawn from science. Entities are theorized, predicted and then sought for. Imagine a hypohetical particle x. We look for its existence. In that sense ''existence'' is a property and finding x we assign the property ''existence'' to x

I still don't think the binary "this or that" is the right way to look at those underlying moral problems. — Noble Dust

Ok. Morality is vague and ambiguous enough to preclude any definitive solution to my problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Can you think of another method to make the distinction I asked in the OP?