As my esteemed friend has seen fit to leave a response to my response concerning her response (this will likely go on ad nuaseum--consider this a fair warning to those with better things to do with their time), and as she has left me an open invitation to argue about this to my heart's delight, I hereby offer my newest rebuttal.
Since so much of your response centered on the semantics of this discussion--that, too, then will be my focul point in this post. To speak a truth in the wrong words is to speak a falsehood (hehe...it's fun-time with pomposity).
You define "Deserve" as to merit, be qualified for, of have claim to something because of actions, qualities, or situation. I would agree with everything but the word "situation" being in there. (And Mr. Webster and I don't really give a damn what that old bastard Mr. Oxford has to say.) To add situation as a qualification of deserving is to relegate the entire concept to a mere synonym of cause and effect. This is sort of like the panthiests calling the universe god. Well there's really no point in calling the universe god, because the universe already has a name--we call it the universe. The only thing you can hope to accomplish by neglecting the subtle nuances of a word is to further confuse the already clueless. And let's face it, that's not much of an accomplishment.
Without its implicit connection to justice, and in turn morality, the entire concept of "deserving" dissapates into nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment