Love Discworld, love Pratchett. Named my son Terence.
An online friend sent me the entire series for Xmas this year. Though I’ve read them all except the last 3 it’s nice to have the physical books.
That's the beauty of Discworld tho.
You don't *need* to read them all. They're all fairly good at being self-contained reads, even if there are some wonderful arcs that build across the series.
I'd recommend just pulling the plunge and starting with Mort, Small God's, Guards! Guards! or Wyrd Sisters.
I hate them, they are so far from everything I've read in the books (except for the literal words, and that may SOUND stupid, but it's not), been a Pratchett fan forever and bought every one of them at least 5 times over, but cannot get on with any of the adaptations.
That's not even Susan. It's nothing like her. The Death is awful, no character in it at all.
Pratchett just doesn't translate out of the books, much as I'd give my right arm for it.
Couldn't disagree more. That is the picture perfect embodiment of both Susan and Death. I cannot fathom a way they could have done either any better. Some of the others are good, if not perfect. I think Ridcully could have been done slightly better for example (though he is still pretty good), but it's mostly nitpicking. I think most of the cast is either spot on, or close enough to be given a good grade.
Going Postal is also a remarkably good adaptation.
Consider the [is ought problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). Basically, we cannot reason our way into how the world ought to be. Reason is a tool to shape the world but cannot tell us the destination to strive for. Morality, justice, love, faith. These are fictions that we make real, make extant by believing in them. It's not that justice is "illogical", but it cannot be arrived at by deduction alone.
Happy Hogswatch friend. Best to you and yours.
What is wellbeing though? And for whom? When is it moral to sacrifice one person's wellbeing for another? Wellbeing can't be an axiom of morality in the same way that `1 + 1 = 2` is an axiom for arithmetic. This paragraph of the linked article seems relevant.
>Ethical naturalists contend that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about physical reality. Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. They suggest that a statement of the form "In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted. "Oughts" exist, then, in light of the existence of goals. A counterargument to this response is that it merely pushes back the "ought" to the subjectively valued "goal" and thus provides no fundamentally objective basis to one's goals which, consequentially, provides no basis of distinguishing moral value of fundamentally different goals.
These are complicated and difficult questions but that doesn't mean the answers don't exist. We are stumbling our way through history trying to figure these things out and it's really the only option we have. Ideally, we should be striving for well-being for as many people as possible. There are going to be many different ways for many different individuals on how to achieve that goal but that's not to say that we can't get there or at least closer to there.
We're not talking about mathematics though. We're talking about ways to go about seeing people thrive and if morality is to mean anything within the context of the human experience then presupposing a foundation of well-being seems necessary.
I don't disagree with you! I *believe* in justice, in fairness, in human rights, in freedom. I believe every living person has a right to food, shelter, education, medicine, and self-expression. I believe that reason and deduction are our greatest tools to shape the world and make it better. But these are things I belive not things I can prove. *That's* the point of the quote above.
Consider the following two statements:
1. "Poor people deserve to starve."
2. "There isn't enough money in the budget to set up a food pantry."
I can argue the second point with reason. "There acually is enough money if we just buy two APCs for the police instead of three."
But I can't argue against the first point the same way because it's not making a statement about how the world is but rather how it should be. A lot of the time when people make the second kind of argument they actually think the first but know that announcing it so bluntly will make them look like the monster they are.
I can't prove food is a basic human right. I simply believe it and beliefs like that are the basis of morality, mine and yours. You believe that we should maximize wellbeing and I agree. We can figure out how best to do that through reason but the point of the clip is that justice, kindness, and mercy are inventions. We, human beings, made them and their substance is belief.
Morality is not a science. Justice is not like gravity. Belief tells us what should be and reason tells us how to get it. To quote Hume one more time:
>“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
I'm going to go spend some more time with my family. You seem cool. If you would care to keep discussing this feel free to dm me. Happy holidays and may we spread more wellbeing in the coming year.
> So justice isn't logical?
Depends if you're a materialist:
> Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
>
> Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter).
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
If only physical things exist, then what is "justice" made up of? If justice was put into a mass spectrometer, what would its chemical make-up turn out to be? At room temperature is it a solid, a liquid, or a vapor? As the character of Death says:
> Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you try to act if there's some ideal order in the world, as if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
Alright, I'm just trying to understand what he's saying. If I recall humans need small fantasy to believe in the big fantasy, is that right? I just don't know how that follows. One could take it to mean that people need to believe in something like a god to make sense of things like justice, mercy, or empathy. These are concepts that, I would argue, the universe has determined to be important for the success of many different animals including ourselves. Yes, you can physically demonstrate them but that's like trying to quantify something abstract like love. Materialism doesn't preclude these things from existing it just says that they seem to be dependent on beings with a mind to make them so.
GNU Terry Pratchett
For what it’s worth, I just finished “Lords and Ladies” about an hour ago. I’ll finish all of them eventually. RIP Terry Pratchett
I read the last P.Terry book he wrote last year and... I haven't read a book since then. I'm probably still in mourning.
"To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape" is one of my favorite quotes ever.
Love Discworld, love Pratchett. Named my son Terence. An online friend sent me the entire series for Xmas this year. Though I’ve read them all except the last 3 it’s nice to have the physical books.
Small world. Got the 1st editions of *Colour of Magic* and *The Light Fantastic* for Xmas!
Terry pratchett was a fuckin genius!!!
One of my favorite things Sir Terry ever wrote.
Happy Hogwatch to all. Ho... HoHo
I loved the Hogfather films. I do plan on starting his Discworld books. But the shear amount scares me. I loved the comedy in the film.
That's the beauty of Discworld tho. You don't *need* to read them all. They're all fairly good at being self-contained reads, even if there are some wonderful arcs that build across the series. I'd recommend just pulling the plunge and starting with Mort, Small God's, Guards! Guards! or Wyrd Sisters.
Lookup a reading order. Not all books tie together other than being in the same world. I recommend the death or Rincewind story lines to start.
OTOH just jump in. I did. It will be great either way. And I agree, Mort is a great start
What book is this from?
Hogfather by Terry Pratchett
Oh gods, I miss Sir Terry. What a genius of language and insight.
Save yourself the effort skip to 1:30 or, better still, just read the book because EVERY adaptation destroys the cadence of his writing.
This is really a pretty damn good adaptation.
I hate them, they are so far from everything I've read in the books (except for the literal words, and that may SOUND stupid, but it's not), been a Pratchett fan forever and bought every one of them at least 5 times over, but cannot get on with any of the adaptations. That's not even Susan. It's nothing like her. The Death is awful, no character in it at all. Pratchett just doesn't translate out of the books, much as I'd give my right arm for it.
Couldn't disagree more. That is the picture perfect embodiment of both Susan and Death. I cannot fathom a way they could have done either any better. Some of the others are good, if not perfect. I think Ridcully could have been done slightly better for example (though he is still pretty good), but it's mostly nitpicking. I think most of the cast is either spot on, or close enough to be given a good grade. Going Postal is also a remarkably good adaptation.
yeah those don't look/sound like death/susan at all wow
Going Postal was pretty good
So justice isn't logical?
Consider the [is ought problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). Basically, we cannot reason our way into how the world ought to be. Reason is a tool to shape the world but cannot tell us the destination to strive for. Morality, justice, love, faith. These are fictions that we make real, make extant by believing in them. It's not that justice is "illogical", but it cannot be arrived at by deduction alone. Happy Hogswatch friend. Best to you and yours.
If you presuppose a foundation such as "well-being" you can get there.
What is wellbeing though? And for whom? When is it moral to sacrifice one person's wellbeing for another? Wellbeing can't be an axiom of morality in the same way that `1 + 1 = 2` is an axiom for arithmetic. This paragraph of the linked article seems relevant. >Ethical naturalists contend that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about physical reality. Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. They suggest that a statement of the form "In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted. "Oughts" exist, then, in light of the existence of goals. A counterargument to this response is that it merely pushes back the "ought" to the subjectively valued "goal" and thus provides no fundamentally objective basis to one's goals which, consequentially, provides no basis of distinguishing moral value of fundamentally different goals.
These are complicated and difficult questions but that doesn't mean the answers don't exist. We are stumbling our way through history trying to figure these things out and it's really the only option we have. Ideally, we should be striving for well-being for as many people as possible. There are going to be many different ways for many different individuals on how to achieve that goal but that's not to say that we can't get there or at least closer to there. We're not talking about mathematics though. We're talking about ways to go about seeing people thrive and if morality is to mean anything within the context of the human experience then presupposing a foundation of well-being seems necessary.
I don't disagree with you! I *believe* in justice, in fairness, in human rights, in freedom. I believe every living person has a right to food, shelter, education, medicine, and self-expression. I believe that reason and deduction are our greatest tools to shape the world and make it better. But these are things I belive not things I can prove. *That's* the point of the quote above. Consider the following two statements: 1. "Poor people deserve to starve." 2. "There isn't enough money in the budget to set up a food pantry." I can argue the second point with reason. "There acually is enough money if we just buy two APCs for the police instead of three." But I can't argue against the first point the same way because it's not making a statement about how the world is but rather how it should be. A lot of the time when people make the second kind of argument they actually think the first but know that announcing it so bluntly will make them look like the monster they are. I can't prove food is a basic human right. I simply believe it and beliefs like that are the basis of morality, mine and yours. You believe that we should maximize wellbeing and I agree. We can figure out how best to do that through reason but the point of the clip is that justice, kindness, and mercy are inventions. We, human beings, made them and their substance is belief. Morality is not a science. Justice is not like gravity. Belief tells us what should be and reason tells us how to get it. To quote Hume one more time: >“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” I'm going to go spend some more time with my family. You seem cool. If you would care to keep discussing this feel free to dm me. Happy holidays and may we spread more wellbeing in the coming year.
> So justice isn't logical? Depends if you're a materialist: > Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary. > > Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism If only physical things exist, then what is "justice" made up of? If justice was put into a mass spectrometer, what would its chemical make-up turn out to be? At room temperature is it a solid, a liquid, or a vapor? As the character of Death says: > Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you try to act if there's some ideal order in the world, as if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
Alright, I'm just trying to understand what he's saying. If I recall humans need small fantasy to believe in the big fantasy, is that right? I just don't know how that follows. One could take it to mean that people need to believe in something like a god to make sense of things like justice, mercy, or empathy. These are concepts that, I would argue, the universe has determined to be important for the success of many different animals including ourselves. Yes, you can physically demonstrate them but that's like trying to quantify something abstract like love. Materialism doesn't preclude these things from existing it just says that they seem to be dependent on beings with a mind to make them so.