User talk:Eso

Welcome to the of the internet. 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity and Dignity and Blasphemy
The following remarks may become part of an essay about the word "dignity." The remarks are about just ONE meaning of dignity. The remarks are a work in progress; they may need adjustment to fit into the proposed essay. Please let me know if the remarks do not help you to understand what the heart of dignity is.

Please note that I am but a messenger who is reporting the way things are. I am not saying that the way things are is the way they should be. I am not inventing words for amusement or presenting a flight of fancy. Please do not blame me for the world's word-play. I am reporting the craziness. I have no control of it.

 One use of dignity combines quiddity and goodness. Quiddity is whatness. It is the quality of something that tells us what it is. The quiddity of a shoe is "shoeness." The quiddity of a devil is "devilishness." The quiddity of a human is "humanness."
 * REMARKS

When we grant goodness to a quiddity, we create dignity. We can create dignity out of anything. For example, if we grant goodness to humanness, then we have a justification for saying that humanness has dignity or that some humans have dignity. If someone holds that science is good, then he can say that science has dignity. If someone holds that deceiving infidels is good, then he can say that lying or deception has dignity. Saying that something has dignity is making a claim that something deserves respect and benevolent treatment.

Claiming that something deserves respect and benevolent treatment by reason of that something's dignity is problematic. The problem is that adversaries can use dignity for contrary purposes. For example, someone can claim that religion has dignity and, therefore, religion deserves respect. Nothing prevents someone else from claiming that anti-religion has dignity and, therefore, anti-religion deserves respect. In neither case does the invocation of dignity prove anything. Neither statement is true merely because it makes reference to dignity.

The example demonstrates dignity's capacity to serve any master. That capacity subverts dignity's usefulness as a reason for anything. Calling for people to respect something merely because it has dignity is not reasonable. The call is mere word-play. The call is sophistry. ESO  talk   18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PJR
Why am I reminded of PJR's defining of "Information"? (If you can't beat 'em with brains, baffle 'em with bullshit.) 09:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual sysop nonsense
Congratulations! You have met our incredibly low standards of "mostly or completely harmless" to be given the rank of sysop. Here's your flight instruction manual. 00:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)