r/funny • u/soyourlife So Your Life Is Meaningless • 3d ago
Verified Just Being Logical
30
60
u/CrackBabyBasketballs 3d ago
Billionaire problem solving be like
5
u/ChilledParadox 2d ago
My politicians problem solving be like:
Step 1. Justify why unloved people should be killed.
Step 2. Make more people unloved.
Step 3. Kill more people.13
9
5
u/riffraff 2d ago
reminds me of a comedian's joke letter to Santa Claus "Thanks Santa for delivering on my request from last year, that we don't have any more hungry children, in fact everyone who was hungry last year is now dead".
7
u/JustAlpha 3d ago
Some of you don't understand that comics are satirical jokes and the humor is found in the implausible conclusion drawn by the individual... and that makes me sad.
9
3
2
2
u/Prince-Angel-Wing 3d ago
I'm not kind when I'm loved, I'm honest. After I'm honest, depending on response, then I'm kind. If someone can't take honesty, then kindness isn't what they want, because only real kindness comes from honesty.
6
u/jimmylikeswaffles 3d ago
Honesty and truth isn't necessarily the same thing which is why we should have humility when we share our honesty
-3
u/Prince-Angel-Wing 3d ago
People can abuse humility and manipulate it to their benefit, and the same with kindness, which is why honesty must come first.
2
u/jimmylikeswaffles 3d ago
Must it?
-1
u/exportkaffe 3d ago edited 3d ago
he's right. Without honesty, kindness isn't kind nor is humility humble. the foundation must be truth for anything else to have value, or else it's just fake humility or fake kindness.
the reason I use the word must, which is a strong word, is because of Dostoevsky. Read Crime and Punishment and/or Brothers Karamazov, he makes the strongest case for this that I've ever read
1
u/jimmylikeswaffles 2d ago
"He's right". Well there it is then, case closed with intellectual certainty.
Except, I've actually read Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, which is partly why I don’t think Dostoevsky supports the argument you’re making as straightforwardly as you think he does.
I agree with the underlying point that kindness built on deliberate falsehood isn’t genuine kindness. But that isn’t the same thing as saying that honesty is inherently virtuous, or that being honest makes your judgment truthful.
Dostoevsky repeatedly shows the danger of confusing those things.
The Underground Man in Notes from Underground is a particularly good example. He is extraordinarily “honest” about his thoughts, motives, resentments and contradictions. He is self-aware to an almost pathological degree. But his honesty does not make him kind, wise, or morally superior. In fact, his self-consciousness and intellectualism become vehicles for spite and cruelty. His problem isn't simply that he lies to other people; it's that he can use his own “honesty” to rationalise his worst impulses.
And that's essentially the problem with your argument here.
You presented your position as though “honesty” gives you epistemic and moral authority: I am telling you the truth, therefore if you reject it, you must be rejecting truth itself. But what you actually gave me was your interpretation of Dostoevsky. You've assumed that your interpretation is objective truth, and then used that assumption to establish your moral superiority over the alternative position with an afditional assumption that I haven't reqd those books. Thisbis your honesty, but it is not the truth.
Ironically, that is precisely the kind of self-deception Dostoevsky is interested in.
Your honesty may be completely sincere. I don't doubt that you genuinely believe what you're saying. But sincerity only establishes that you're honestly expressing your belief. It doesn't establish that the belief itself is true.
And there's an additional irony: you approached this conversation with the intellectual confidence of someone who had an opportunity to educate someone who, unlike you, hasn't read Dostoevsky. But I've read the books too, and I don't think their core message is what you're claiming it is.
Dostoevsky doesn't ultimately give us “honesty above all else.” He gives us a much more difficult combination of truth, humility, responsibility and love.
Zosima and Alyosha are much closer to the moral ideal of The Brothers Karamazov than someone who essentially says, “I'm honest, and if you're hurt by my honesty, that's your problem.” Zosima's emphasis on responsibility for others and active love is important precisely because moral goodness isn't reduced to possessing or proclaiming truth. You are not morally absolved simply because your words are sincere.
So I actually agree with part of your premise: falsehood can corrupt kindness.
But the reverse is also true: honesty can be corrupted by pride. An intellectual certainty which could to be inaccurate in the cold light of day.
Someone can tell the truth out of love, or tell it out of resentment. They can tell it humbly, or condescendingly. They can be mistaken, while being completely sincere. And they can use a genuine truth as a weapon while congratulating themselves for being “honest.”
That's why I said honesty and truth aren't necessarily the same thing, and why humility matters.
If Dostoevsky has taught me anything, it's that I should be extremely suspicious of the person who is certain that their own sincerity makes them the one who possesses the truth.
"He's right".
2
u/exportkaffe 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thanks for your answer, genuinely. And I actually agree with your entire sentiment, but you do falsely assume that I have a moral superiority and that my answer was the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I reject your assumptions about me.
I think you understand him deeply. I didn't say that as long as the foundation is truth, it is virtuous, only that when it isn't the foundation it cannot be virtuous.
That's all I really have to say. Your false assumptions of me aside, well put.
Edit: On further reflection however, since you were the one bringing morality into this, I would actually ask you to read your comment to me with regards to yourself. I had no sense of superiority or virtue in my initial response, you brought that in. However I will assign that not to you as a person but due to normal internet discussions tendencies. I doubt that if we had a one to one conversation about this, there would be any such feelings. So I take it back actually.
2
1
1
u/RavnVidarson 2d ago
Reminds me of a Doctor Who story:
"AI, your job is to eliminate sadness." AI: "Understood. Killing everyone who is sad."
1
1
u/Forte_Cross 2d ago
This is basically how people treat incels and other toxic male culture.
Those men and boys are often completely devoid of any meaningful kindness in their lives and everyone treats them as sludge not worth pissing on if they were on fire.
1
-3
-1
0
u/Yarius515 3d ago
No one is loved less than Theil, Atlman, Musk, tRump, Putin, Netenyahoo.
That'd be a great start towards making the majority's lives better....
0
-11
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.