Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 8006979" data-attributes="member: 6683613">There are any number of ways to be chaotic without actively opposing the establishment. Salvador Dalí was bizarre and eccentric and never once met a rule that he felt applied to him, but I'm not aware that he tried to bring down the Spanish government at all. (Which, given the Spanish government of the era, was controversial in and of itself.) Most nonconformists don't try to bring down the government, actually. They're busy doing their own thing. Nevertheless I don't think we're at a loss to separate them from the normal everyday folks who fall into neutrality.We could perhaps say that Dalí was chaotic because he opposed the artistic establishment rather than the political establishment. But if we admit rebellion against other sorts of establishments this way, then Robin Hood could (and probably would) oppose some such establishments as well. So either way, we can't say he's not chaotic just because he's okay with King Richard.Well, it's not like Robin Hood never violates or opposes the law -- he violated and opposed the law a lot. (Whether &quot;Law&quot; and &quot;the law&quot; are the same thing is another question -- see above re: different ways to be chaotic.) Just because he's not breaking a law right now doesn't mean he hasn't done it in the past or that he won't do it again in the future. Don't think of a character choosing to commit an atrocity for the greater good; that analogy runs off the rails at a couple points (briefly: the act-omission distinction and the asymmetry between normative and antinormative alignments). Think instead of a character who decides that they don't currently have to commit any atrocities to get what they want, but who would commit one if the circumstances changed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 8006979, member: 6683613"] There are any number of ways to be chaotic without actively opposing the establishment. Salvador Dalí was bizarre and eccentric and never once met a rule that he felt applied to him, but I'm not aware that he tried to bring down the Spanish government at all. (Which, given the Spanish government of the era, was controversial in and of itself.) Most nonconformists don't try to bring down the government, actually. They're busy doing their own thing. Nevertheless I don't think we're at a loss to separate them from the normal everyday folks who fall into neutrality. We could perhaps say that Dalí was chaotic because he opposed the [I]artistic[/I] establishment rather than the [I]political[/I] establishment. But if we admit rebellion against other sorts of establishments this way, then Robin Hood could (and probably would) oppose some such establishments as well. So either way, we can't say he's not chaotic just because he's okay with King Richard. Well, it's not like Robin Hood [I]never[/I] violates or opposes the law -- he violated and opposed the law a [I]lot[/I]. (Whether "Law" and "the law" are the same thing is another question -- see above re: different ways to be chaotic.) Just because he's not breaking a law right now doesn't mean he hasn't done it in the past or that he won't do it again in the future. Don't think of a character choosing to commit an atrocity for the greater good; that analogy runs off the rails at a couple points (briefly: the act-omission distinction and the asymmetry between normative and antinormative alignments). Think instead of a character who decides that they don't currently have to commit any atrocities to get what they want, but who would commit one if the circumstances changed. [/QUOTE]

Verification