PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER THIS IF ANSWERING GIVES STUFF AWAY ABOUT THE PLOT OF TFIOS. In the second chapter of TFIOS, that which you read for us, you talk about the idea of subjective and objective good (“The existence of broccoli does not in any way affect the taste of chocolate”). Do you believe that? Does Hazel?

Monday, December 12, 2011

culvercreekprankmaster asked: PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER THIS IF ANSWERING GIVES STUFF AWAY ABOUT THE PLOT OF TFIOS. In the second chapter of TFIOS, that which you read for us, you talk about the idea of subjective and objective good ("The existence of broccoli does not in any way affect the taste of chocolate"). Do you believe that? Does Hazel?

Well, it’s true. It’s not a belief. It’s a fact. If broccoli did not exist, chocolate would taste exactly as chocolate tastes. (You can argue that the experience of eating chocolate is shaped by eating broccoli, but you can’t argue that the flavors of chocolate are affected by the existence of broccoli.)

Anyway, this line of thinking in re. suffering is very common, particularly in cultures that have a good/evil dualism expressed by god/the devil or harry/voldemort or empire/rebels or whatever: The idea is that suffering exists so it can heighten and shape our experiences of joy.

This is not, in my opinion, a very thought-out or persuasive idea. Like, if suffering existed so it could heighten our joy, then wouldn’t the suffering be evenly distributed so that we could all experience the exact right amount of it to have our joy ideally heightened? But we know that suffering is not evenly distributed among humans, that some suffer more and longer than others.

In short, the universe isn’t fair. And saying that a Negative X intensifies a Positive Y imagines a fairness and balance to the universe that does not line up with the universe that I see. (Of course, I might be wrong. I am often wrong!)