### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings.
god has the cure for all evil and no human ever will. it is impossible. evil can be avoided mostly by choosing to be good rather than bad but a "cure" is only attainable by god and myself. — jesus christScience may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings. Motivation. That's your remedy.
I agree in general, though I wouldn't say it's distorted necessarily. That remains relative to opinion. In terms of the physicality though, "blue" is just a color out of the infinite that exist in the visual spectrum - as well as in other spectra like infrared and ultraviolet spectra. If you perceive light at different frequencies, in the end, you'll still be perceiving light (objectivity), even with differing colors (subjectivity).
Who is to say physicality has the last say though?
The fact that good and bad mathematicians exists who are solving the same problem does not mean that the problem is subjectively solvable, but that one person knows the solution, while the other does not. This does not mean that 'bad' mathematician cannot learn how to solve it.
The fact that I say that the Sun is blue does not mean its color is subjective, but that I am either crazy or have a visual impairment. In case of visual impairment, it is not that the color of the Sun is subjective, but that I have a distorted image of it.
In a way, subjectivities exist while there is incompatibility of information that different persons have on a subject. Should they exchange all the information, they may get to the same objective (or maybe still subjective) conclusion.
Think for a sec. Person 'A' argues that some, or all, facet(s) of a topic is/are good. 'B' argues they are evil. Who is correct then?
To the moral absolutist, either 'A' or 'B', or some person 'C', will be correct. For the moral relativist, all persons involved are not correct or wrong since there is no absolute standard to look to.
The fact that both the absolutist & relativist EXIST to argue the case, however, prove it's all subjectivism - since there's no objective conclusion.
Subjectivities! I would not dare use that word so lightly in regards to good and evil. Good and evil are mere subjectivities. The sciences give definite answers in regards to the what, where, when, and how. Philosophy gives us many indefinite answers in regards to the why. The difference between the two is easy to notice: content people do not complain, apathetic people do complain but think there's nothing they can do about it. Are you sure it is apathy? Have you asked them? Maybe it just looks that way because they are content.Apathy as we think we know it does not actually exist. We live in a world which actively discourages engagement by constantly putting obstacles and barriers in our way: intentional exclusion with obscure information, public space dominated by commercial messages, media omitting relevant actionable information from political articles, promotion of *chosen* heroes in popular culture, uninspiring political parties, passionate and informed charitable voices are silenced, elections are a joke.
Regardless: Apathy isn't evil. It's just 'meh' What about adrenaline rush when someone pushes you out of the plane at 20,000 feet, with the parachute, of course! Hey! Despair is not apathy! Why did I mix these two terms. In my mind they seem to have something in common. What could that be? But I thought it did. At least I remember watching Terminator 3 when Arnold, I mean T-101, quotes psychology database to John: "Anger is better than despair", and helps him overcame dispair by making him angry.