1. notleia says:

    Or maybe purity is not actually a virtue.

    • Travis Perry says:

      Lol. Of course Notleia is anti-purity…

      But to take the issue seriously, it really depends on what you mean by “purity.” People normally see purity in, say, water as a virtue. Which simply means the water is water and not mixed with chemicals other than water. Pure water is good. Though a bit of certain chemicals can arguably make it a bit better–say by adding flouride.

      However, pure water is basically harmless. Yes, it is possible to drink too much, but a human being won’t naturally do that as far as I know. Though there have been cases of other humans like coaches or military supervisors commanding someone to drink to the point where they died, a person normally knows when he or she has had plenty of water and stops drinking. So…water is essentially non-toxic.

      But the moment a person decided to improve water by adding chemicals like flouride, the risk of putting in too much raises its head. Which means there’s a risk of someone being harmed without realizing the harm–not until it’s too late. So there should be caution involved in steering away from purity.

      Of course there are some things you would never want to deliberately add to water, because in any known quantity do they do nothing but harm, so adding them at all–even if a person could survive the dosage–is bad. (E.g. plutonium–the amount of that allowable in water is zero.)

      Is my analogy flawed? Sure. But in short I’m defending non-Aristotellian thinking. Aristotle believed everything was good in moderation. I’m saying some things are good as much as you can get them–while other things are goood in moderation–and still other things are to be avoided at all costs.

      By the way, the poop-in-the-food analogy is meant to convey the same meaning as my plutonium-in-your-drinking-water example. It just means there are certain things nobody ever needs to have any of. Is that true? Clearly yes, at least in things we eat and drink.

      Is it also true in popular culture? I would say so–I would say we need zero graphic depictions of sex intended to arouse the reader or viewer (a.k.a. porn). I think E. Stephen actually agrees about that.

      While most things can be intelligently engaged in moderate amounts, certain other things ought to be avoided altogether. Maybe not very many things make the list of “always avoid” but there are some such things…

    • Brennan McPherson says:

      By definition, purity is the absence of any vice and the presence of all virtues.

  2. People need to realize that just because something is bad/useless/whatever in one capacity, doesn’t mean that it is automatically bad in another. Sure, you wouldn’t eat poop, but you MIGHT fertilize your garden with it. It’s the same with stories. You might not look at a char’s bad behavior as something to emulate, but it can be ‘fertilizer’ for good conversations, examples of what NOT to do, etc. And examples of what not to do are just as valuable as examples to emulate.

    People are obsessed with avoiding things rather than understanding and reacting to them correctly. Christians do/have done that a lot on the past, and a lot of cancel culture liberals are getting worse and worse about it now. It’s a nasty part of human nature we need to learn to handle better.

What do you think?