Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6737705" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think I see the problem, and it's a repeated one that has been coming up lately on the boards.You didn't quite say the same thing I did.&nbsp; If you were going to repeat back to me what I said, you'd have said something like:&quot;Does that mean that a little bit fair of fairness is still fairness, and a little bit of generosity is still generosity, and a little bit of compassion is still compassionate?&quot;And the answer to those questions is, &quot;Yes.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; You see in the English language there are two ways of constructing a sentence that are similar, but have very different meanings.I can say, &quot;What you did was foolish.&quot;Or I can say, &quot;You are a fool.&quot;The first is something which we could reasonably express about everyone.&nbsp; At some time or the other we'd expect everyone to do something that could be characterized as foolish.&nbsp;&nbsp; But this formation only characterizes the action itself.&nbsp; It doesn't characterize the actor.&nbsp; I could say to a person I considered very wise, &quot;What you did was foolish.&quot;, and imply this act was out of character.The second formation means that the actor's nature and not the action's nature is characterized by foolishness.&nbsp; By this formation I mean that the person is characterized by repeated and extreme acts of foolishness stemming from his own flawed nature.So when I saw that a little bit selfish is still selfish, I merely mean to describe a particular action as being imperfect.&nbsp; I'm making no comment on the usual actions of the person or their fundamental nature.&nbsp; Now, what I might say with some confidence is that everyone's actions are characterized by imperfection almost all of the time, as each person's desires and will and foresight are flawed at each given moment to a greater or lesser degree.&nbsp; In the real world, unlike the game world, I don't have to describe a person as 'good' or 'evil' if only because I have no way to accurately measure that anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is why I said that the game world was different than the real world in that good and evil are probably defined at least in part by being &quot;one standard deviation&quot; above or below the norm, with everyone else being in the muddled middle.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you want to think of the real world as being like that, then one little selfish act probably doesn't make you selfish (or evil) because a little bit of selfishness is probably well above the norm.&nbsp; If your only flaw is an occasional small act of selfishness, chances are you'd be or are widely recognized as a very and exceedingly generous person.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6737705, member: 4937"] I think I see the problem, and it's a repeated one that has been coming up lately on the boards. You didn't quite say the same thing I did. If you were going to repeat back to me what I said, you'd have said something like: "Does that mean that a little bit fair of fairness is still fairness, and a little bit of generosity is still generosity, and a little bit of compassion is still compassionate?" And the answer to those questions is, "Yes." You see in the English language there are two ways of constructing a sentence that are similar, but have very different meanings. I can say, "What you did was foolish." Or I can say, "You are a fool." The first is something which we could reasonably express about everyone. At some time or the other we'd expect everyone to do something that could be characterized as foolish. But this formation only characterizes the action itself. It doesn't characterize the actor. I could say to a person I considered very wise, "What you did was foolish.", and imply this act was out of character. The second formation means that the actor's nature and not the action's nature is characterized by foolishness. By this formation I mean that the person is characterized by repeated and extreme acts of foolishness stemming from his own flawed nature. So when I saw that a little bit selfish is still selfish, I merely mean to describe a particular action as being imperfect. I'm making no comment on the usual actions of the person or their fundamental nature. Now, what I might say with some confidence is that everyone's actions are characterized by imperfection almost all of the time, as each person's desires and will and foresight are flawed at each given moment to a greater or lesser degree. In the real world, unlike the game world, I don't have to describe a person as 'good' or 'evil' if only because I have no way to accurately measure that anyway. This is why I said that the game world was different than the real world in that good and evil are probably defined at least in part by being "one standard deviation" above or below the norm, with everyone else being in the muddled middle. If you want to think of the real world as being like that, then one little selfish act probably doesn't make you selfish (or evil) because a little bit of selfishness is probably well above the norm. If your only flaw is an occasional small act of selfishness, chances are you'd be or are widely recognized as a very and exceedingly generous person. [/QUOTE]

Verification