• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Misguided vs evil

A

Alexisalexis

Guest
Am I the only one who believes that Warren is not evil or entirely bad? I believe that he only makes bad decisions and that it was his choices that were evil not him. Why does everyone thinks he is evil when he's not? Why does everyone thinks he hates women? He hates Buffy but it does not mean that he hates the entire female population.
 
Puppet
Puppet
I agree he's not evil, but he definitely hates women. More importantly, he considers all women beneath him and wants to hold power over them.

AlphaFoxtrot

Scooby
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
1,820
Age
39
I think the real issue is this. This show trains us to look for meaning in every in sentence and word of the script. I don’t think that works in this case. At least after Surprise, Warren is a heel, he is acted and written to make women hate him on a primal level, and he is a plot device who is there to kill Tara. Aside from a few episodes at the start of the season, he’s not there as a commentary on masculinity, he’s a showcase of arrested development and choice. He’s a just s stereotype, who’s designed to make us hate him enough, so that when Willow gets redeemed, we won’t refuse to forgive her. So, is he evil in season five, or just another selfish teenager learning to deal with others? Probably the latter. But that wasn’t his function in season 6.
 

thrasherpix

Scooby
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
3,415
Age
38
His language, his tactics, his way to program a fembot, even how he treated Katrina whom he presumably loved (at least had some positive feeling for) says to me that he hates women...and I say that as someone who thinks the word "misogynist" and "incel" is thrown about way too much in an ignorant way to the point that I don't even like to use the words anymore, at least without a clarification on why I'm using it.

Disclaimer: I've tried season 8 and couldn't accept it as canon no matter that Joss says they are (he wouldn't sell many if he didn't say that since fanfic is free). I know Warren got along better with Amy, but I'm not counting that. So if you are, that's going to be a divide between us right there.


That aside, I do believe Warren is evil. Not misguided. Evil.

I define evil here as the deliberate persecution and ending of human life for profit, convenience, or even fun/sport. He isn't trying to protect society, he isn't trying to create a better way to fight the monsters and villains, it's not even for survival, but rather it is his stated INTENT to BECOME a villain. He even enters a vampire bar later and brags of his misdeeds, of being a villain, and then when he realizes he's being laughed at, not with, he asks, "This isn't the evil laugh of victory, is it?"

Again, he calls himself evil, and it's a boast, not in a brooding way like Angel gets sometimes. He not only aspires to power to dominate and oppress others, he actually desires the respect of vampires and demons. Heck, right now I'm trying to imagine Warren as a vampire and I honestly can't see him being worse than he already is.

He targets Buffy because she's a hero. This is different from say the Knights of Byzantium who saw Buffy as an obstacle. Buffy was no obstacle to him, at least not until he tried to achieve supervillain status, in which he intended to brutalize the residents, mind control women, and rob bank trucks, all for his own personal glory and power, not in some claim of the dubious "greater good."

Altruism is an alien concept to him. And simply using his tremendous talents to make a fortune as he could and still get the kind of simpering woman he'd like is also not an option, though he could (which would be neither good nor evil in my book, if he chose that path instead, though his technology would certainly be put to evil uses, but he wouldn't be the one using it for evil personally, just marketing his skills and products to let others make the choice on how to use them for good and evil).

Completely sealing how evil he is, he uses and then betrays Jonathan who is loyal to him, so not even personal relationships doesn't protect them, be it Jonathan or Katrina. And when both his cohorts balk at killing Buffy, he doesn't hesitate.

And to be clear, I AM calling Warren straight up Evil. Speculate on his childhood and issues all you want, I still call him Evil, and he has NO sympathy from me. Nor anyone who relates to him too much. Even the case that he was redeemable would be a very hard sale to me.

Now that I've displayed my reasoning for why I define Warren as evil, I'd be morbidly curious why you think he's actually an okay guy who just went about things the wrong way. Something that isn't fanon or fanfiction. (If it's from the "canon" comics or books then please let me know. Also, if you're one of those people who believes "evil doesn't exist, it's an arbitrary concept" then please let me know that as well.)
 
thetopher
thetopher
Motivation is the key factor here. Warren's stated goal was to have power and to become 'evil', a villain.
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
662
Age
35
Location
England
I mean ... how do you separate evil actions from an evil person? How do we judge a person as "evil" if not by their actions and words?

So - if Warren's actions and words are evil, if the choices he makes are evil, how do you come to the conclusion that he, himself, isn't evil? What is the criteria of being evil and how exactly - when he makes evil choices and causes significant harm, and doesn't care about that harm - does Warren fall short of that criteria?
 

Moggin

Tasty Townie
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
340
Warren is evil, but I've got say, very entertaining to watch. Adam Busch had great comedic timing, and often got some of the better punchlines with the Trio. Busch also gets points for subtly shifting that humor to genuine psychopathy and back again, so the shift is almost imperceptible.

I think this is why we are able to have this discussion. Busch portrayed a realistic villain, not a fantasy creature, but a real human devoid of empathy or a care for the consequences of his actions. His portrayal, to me, is far more frightening than the other villains, because he does seem real.

Warren can also be kind of charming in a dorky way. He's fun to watch, but that is also what makes him doubly repulsive when he does something truly terrible.
 
A

Alexisalexis

Guest
His language, his tactics, his way to program a fembot, even how he treated Katrina whom he presumably loved (at least had some positive feeling for) says to me that he hates women...and I say that as someone who thinks the word "misogynist" and "incel" is thrown about way too much in an ignorant way to the point that I don't even like to use the words anymore, at least without a clarification on why I'm using it.

Disclaimer: I've tried season 8 and couldn't accept it as canon no matter that Joss says they are (he wouldn't sell many if he didn't say that since fanfic is free). I know Warren got along better with Amy, but I'm not counting that. So if you are, that's going to be a divide between us right there.


That aside, I do believe Warren is evil. Not misguided. Evil.

I define evil here as the deliberate persecution and ending of human life for profit, convenience, or even fun/sport. He isn't trying to protect society, he isn't trying to create a better way to fight the monsters and villains, it's not even for survival, but rather it is his stated INTENT to BECOME a villain. He even enters a vampire bar later and brags of his misdeeds, of being a villain, and then when he realizes he's being laughed at, not with, he asks, "This isn't the evil laugh of victory, is it?"

Again, he calls himself evil, and it's a boast, not in a brooding way like Angel gets sometimes. He not only aspires to power to dominate and oppress others, he actually desires the respect of vampires and demons. Heck, right now I'm trying to imagine Warren as a vampire and I honestly can't see him being worse than he already is.

He targets Buffy because she's a hero. This is different from say the Knights of Byzantium who saw Buffy as an obstacle. Buffy was no obstacle to him, at least not until he tried to achieve supervillain status, in which he intended to brutalize the residents, mind control women, and rob bank trucks, all for his own personal glory and power, not in some claim of the dubious "greater good."

Altruism is an alien concept to him. And simply using his tremendous talents to make a fortune as he could and still get the kind of simpering woman he'd like is also not an option, though he could (which would be neither good nor evil in my book, if he chose that path instead, though his technology would certainly be put to evil uses, but he wouldn't be the one using it for evil personally, just marketing his skills and products to let others make the choice on how to use them for good and evil).

Completely sealing how evil he is, he uses and then betrays Jonathan who is loyal to him, so not even personal relationships doesn't protect them, be it Jonathan or Katrina. And when both his cohorts balk at killing Buffy, he doesn't hesitate.

And to be clear, I AM calling Warren straight up Evil. Speculate on his childhood and issues all you want, I still call him Evil, and he has NO sympathy from me. Nor anyone who relates to him too much. Even the case that he was redeemable would be a very hard sale to me.

Now that I've displayed my reasoning for why I define Warren as evil, I'd be morbidly curious why you think he's actually an okay guy who just went about things the wrong way. Something that isn't fanon or fanfiction. (If it's from the "canon" comics or books then please let me know. Also, if you're one of those people who believes "evil doesn't exist, it's an arbitrary concept" then please let me know that as well.)
I can relate to Warren from getting rejected and bullied but I did not follow the same path. Andrew was loyal to him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Alexisalexis

Guest
I mean ... how do you separate evil actions from an evil person? How do we judge a person as "evil" if not by their actions and words?

So - if Warren's actions and words are evil, if the choices he makes are evil, how do you come to the conclusion that he, himself, isn't evil? What is the criteria of being evil and how exactly - when he makes evil choices and causes significant harm, and doesn't care about that harm - does Warren fall short of that criteria?
He makes evil choices when he killed used the dampener on his girlfriend and when he killed people.
 
A

Alexisalexis

Guest
His language, his tactics, his way to program a fembot, even how he treated Katrina whom he presumably loved (at least had some positive feeling for) says to me that he hates women...and I say that as someone who thinks the word "misogynist" and "incel" is thrown about way too much in an ignorant way to the point that I don't even like to use the words anymore, at least without a clarification on why I'm using it.

Disclaimer: I've tried season 8 and couldn't accept it as canon no matter that Joss says they are (he wouldn't sell many if he didn't say that since fanfic is free). I know Warren got along better with Amy, but I'm not counting that. So if you are, that's going to be a divide between us right there.


That aside, I do believe Warren is evil. Not misguided. Evil.

I define evil here as the deliberate persecution and ending of human life for profit, convenience, or even fun/sport. He isn't trying to protect society, he isn't trying to create a better way to fight the monsters and villains, it's not even for survival, but rather it is his stated INTENT to BECOME a villain. He even enters a vampire bar later and brags of his misdeeds, of being a villain, and then when he realizes he's being laughed at, not with, he asks, "This isn't the evil laugh of victory, is it?"

Again, he calls himself evil, and it's a boast, not in a brooding way like Angel gets sometimes. He not only aspires to power to dominate and oppress others, he actually desires the respect of vampires and demons. Heck, right now I'm trying to imagine Warren as a vampire and I honestly can't see him being worse than he already is.

He targets Buffy because she's a hero. This is different from say the Knights of Byzantium who saw Buffy as an obstacle. Buffy was no obstacle to him, at least not until he tried to achieve supervillain status, in which he intended to brutalize the residents, mind control women, and rob bank trucks, all for his own personal glory and power, not in some claim of the dubious "greater good."

Altruism is an alien concept to him. And simply using his tremendous talents to make a fortune as he could and still get the kind of simpering woman he'd like is also not an option, though he could (which would be neither good nor evil in my book, if he chose that path instead, though his technology would certainly be put to evil uses, but he wouldn't be the one using it for evil personally, just marketing his skills and products to let others make the choice on how to use them for good and evil).

Completely sealing how evil he is, he uses and then betrays Jonathan who is loyal to him, so not even personal relationships doesn't protect them, be it Jonathan or Katrina. And when both his cohorts balk at killing Buffy, he doesn't hesitate.

And to be clear, I AM calling Warren straight up Evil. Speculate on his childhood and issues all you want, I still call him Evil, and he has NO sympathy from me. Nor anyone who relates to him too much. Even the case that he was redeemable would be a very hard sale to me.

Now that I've displayed my reasoning for why I define Warren as evil, I'd be morbidly curious why you think he's actually an okay guy who just went about things the wrong way. Something that isn't fanon or fanfiction. (If it's from the "canon" comics or books then please let me know. Also, if you're one of those people who believes "evil doesn't exist, it's an arbitrary concept" then please let me know that as well.)
What about the comics with Amy and Warren? How do they treat each other?
 
A

Alexisalexis

Guest
Warren is evil, but I've got say, very entertaining to watch. Adam Busch had great comedic timing, and often got some of the better punchlines with the Trio. Busch also gets points for subtly shifting that humor to genuine psychopathy and back again, so the shift is almost imperceptible.

I think this is why we are able to have this discussion. Busch portrayed a realistic villain, not a fantasy creature, but a real human devoid of empathy or a care for the consequences of his actions. His portrayal, to me, is far more frightening than the other villains, because he does seem real.

Warren can also be kind of charming in a dorky way. He's fun to watch, but that is also what makes him doubly repulsive when he does something truly terrible.
Warren is not the kindest person but I want to know what makes you say he's charming?
 
Puppet
Puppet
Probably in the same way that Hitler was charming.
A

Alexisalexis

Guest
Andrew and Jonathon are misguided. Warren is evil. You can see the difference in how a & j react when Katrina tells them they tried to rape her and when she dies, compared to Warren.
I don't remember his reaction.
 

Moggin

Tasty Townie
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
340
Warren is not the kindest person but I want to know what makes you say he's charming?
First of all, I want to make sure we are clear when I say he could "also be kind of charming in a dorky way". By no means do I think it was a chief attribute of his, but he had his moments. I will try to list some below.

When Warren talked about Katrina being perfect because she was imperfect it was charming. Unfortunately, we later see he had a nasty vindictive streak and could turn off empathy for her pretty easily.

When Spike forced Warren to build a Buffy bot, Warren initially swore off making any more robot girlfriends. Not only did this seem like a lesson learned, but his fearful stammering around Spike was kind of pitiable.

When Spike was holding the Boba Fett figurine ransom for information about his chip, once again we see Warren stammering, dorky, fearful, and funny. He doesn't look like a big bad yet.

When Warren, arguably the brightest of the Trio, comically dresses down the other two for doing something less intelligent, it's hilarious. Case in point: Jonathan and Andrew don't want to let Buffy die from the invisibility gun, and they argue that Lex Luther never actually kills Superman. Warren quips, "because it's Superman's comic you Moron!" Not only is it an obvious point, but Busch's delivery is really funny. Unfortunately, this is also an extension of his apathy towards other lives.

Finally, when he sees Katrina in the bar and tries to chat her up, for a second, before she realizes who is sitting beside her, even she looks like she finds the line cheesy, but dorkishly charming. The line is terrible, but also a little bit cute. It sounds sincere but lacks polish. It's charming in a dorkish way. Unfortunately, what he does next undercuts it.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
662
Age
35
Location
England
He makes evil choices when he killed used the dampener on his girlfriend and when he killed people.
well yes exactly - so I'll ask my question again as you don't seem to have understood the crux of it - if you accept he is making evil choices then how is he not evil? It is our choices which define us.
 

AnthonyCordova

Earth Invasion Taskforce Unlimited
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
2,140
Location
Denver, Colorado
Sineya
I agree with others above that Warren is evil as conventionally understood. The reasons offered above are valid enough in this context, and there isn't anything to add that comes to mind.

That being said I will also say that in principle I rarely use the word evil, and never in categorical terms. Used categorically, I think it does harm because in the process of completely excluding someone in that way from everyone else, it encourages us to comfortably turn away from our own capacities for "evil" too. Hitler for example is what is considered an obvious example of evil, and I understand what people mean, but let us not overlook that many people had or have the capacity to fall for that form of moral behavior as well. I think it's better not to deny the humanity even in so-called evil people, because it can still serve as a useful reminder to the rest of us that, in certain relevant ways, we share more in common then we don't with these people and that we need to be vigilant not to allow ourselves to follow our own similar dark paths. As much as we'd like to deny it about ourselves, capacities of one sort or another of an "evil" nature exist within each of us. The human condition is a struggle with both light and dark forces, and it's a struggle that every one of us has to deal with. So why do we need to define some people as categorically different than the rest of us? In some ways the question reminds me of the problem of categorizing people as "the Other" in colonial studies or critical race theory. When they are "Other" they no longer have anything in common with us, and if they don't have anything in common with us we can safely justify anything and do with them afterwards whatever we wish.

The problem for me is that we don't really have adequate language to make finer distinctions about "evil", "bad" etc. to do justice to finer gradations and so forth. Nietzsche diagnosed this exact problem with his genealogy of ethical concepts in history. The oppressed classes in history have tended to classify ethical terms like "evil" in categorical ways as a means to express and feel their own agency and power and which were motivated largely by self-preservation. By contrast, those in power have the tendency to brush finer distinctions aside as well, to maintain a status quo. We are the inheritors of this genealogical history of moral concepts. Add to this the idea that, as modern people, the price we continue to pay for our moral inheritance is the guilty conscience, which in this context presents further difficulties, because we can't even make a good faith attempt at objectivity anymore without feeling this sting of conscience and as a result this continues to encourage a categorical and black/white attitude about it. That's why Nietzsche once remarked that the sting of conscience is in a way stupid, because it signifies a weak will or lack of willingness to think further. I've simplified Nietzsche's argument quite a bit here but the general idea is part of the problem for why I find moral discussions like this one a little frustrating. Also consider the contemporary phenomenon of sexuality: increasingly gender and sex are considered less as a binary, and as a result a new space has opened up where many different shades of sexual and gender identity have emerged to take the place of the old binaries. Morality needs a similar revolution like this I think.
 
Last edited:

thetopher

Member of the Church Of Faith
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
10,315
Location
The Moot, England
Sineya
Warren is evil chiefly because of his motivations, not just his actions.
He was written by the writers to be the 'evil' one of the trio. Jonathan and Andrew can be characterized as mostly weak and misguided (who do evil things), but its Warren who has the twisted drive to become what they all set out to be at the start of the season. A straight-up evil villain.
 

thrasherpix

Scooby
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
3,415
Age
38
I agree with others above that Warren is evil as conventionally understood. The reasons offered above are valid enough in this context, and there isn't anything to add that comes to mind.

That being said I will also say that in principle I rarely use the word evil, and never in categorical terms. Used categorically, I think it does harm because in the process of completely excluding someone in that way from everyone else, it encourages us to comfortably turn away from our own capacities for "evil" too. Hitler for example is what is considered an obvious example of evil, and I understand what people mean, but let us not overlook that many people had or have the capacity to fall for that form of moral behavior as well. I think it's better not to deny the humanity even in so-called evil people, because it can still serve as a useful reminder to the rest of us that, in certain relevant ways, we share more in common then we don't with these people and that we need to be vigilant not to allow ourselves to follow our own similar dark paths. As much as we'd like to deny it about ourselves, capacities of one sort or another of an "evil" nature exist within each of us. The human condition is a struggle with both light and dark forces, and it's a struggle that every one of us has to deal with. So why do we need to define some people as categorically different than the rest of us? In some ways the question reminds me of the problem of categorizing people as "the Other" in colonial studies or critical race theory. When they are "Other" they no longer have anything in common with us, and if they don't have anything in common with us we can safely justify anything and do with them afterwards whatever we wish.

The problem for me is that we don't really have adequate language to make finer distinctions about "evil", "bad" etc. to do justice to finer gradations and so forth. Nietzsche diagnosed this exact problem with his genealogy of ethical concepts in history. The oppressed classes in history have tended to classify ethical terms like "evil" in categorical ways as a means to express and feel their own agency and power and which were motivated largely by self-preservation. By contrast, those in power have the tendency to brush finer distinctions aside as well, to maintain a status quo. We are the inheritors of this genealogical history of moral concepts. Add to this the idea that, as modern people, the price we continue to pay for our moral inheritance is the guilty conscience, which in this context presents further difficulties, because we can't even make a good faith attempt at objectivity anymore without feeling this sting of conscience and as a result this continues to encourage a categorical and black/white attitude about it. That's why Nietzsche once remarked that the sting of conscience is in a way stupid, because it signifies a weak will or lack of willingness to think further. I've simplified Nietzsche's argument quite a bit here but the general idea is part of the problem for why I find moral discussions like this one a little frustrating. Also consider the contemporary phenomenon of sexuality: increasingly gender and sex are considered less as a binary, and as a result a new space has opened up where many different shades of sexual and gender identity have emerged to take the place of the old binaries. Morality needs a similar revolution like this I think.
I think many people realize this at least on a basic level (this is even brought up in a Harry Potter novel and movie)...that we are our choices rather than our temptations. I'm therefore fine with using "evil" when someone is being evil.

But some people do project their own shadow selves or use it to be evil themselves. Just because some misuse the word doesn't mean all do. Of course our biases (be it for family or lover, church or state) can muddle our senses, but that doesn't mean some aren't evil, as in choosing to act in a certain way. And I dislike claims of "fungible" evil (implying everyone of a certain race, religion, nationality, political party, gender, profession, etc, are evil)--though also claims that some cannot be considered evil because they are of a certain race, religion, gender, political party, profession, etc.

It's also a classic, probably ancient, saying that the laws are the protection of the mighty and the burden of the poor. Governments and other centers of authority have gone to great lengths to tell us violence never works (even as they throw much or even most of their budget to police, military, and/or security) when they do. The violent parts get whitewashed out because they don't want a repeat of that, and call it evil, when without the violence we'd still live in a much more oppressive society today.

In addition to revisionists, they make heavy use of spin doctors and even psychological techniques to muddy our language so that words can't be trusted, and in many cases I'd be careful about the word as well--just as I am when someone is called a racist, misogynist, incel, SJW, fascist, Stalinist, etc, because the words are abused too much by people who don't really know what it means or because they're deliberately trying to poison the well of discourse (offhand my "favorite" was when Food Not Bombs got labeled "food terrorists" by a mayor, IIRC, for feeding the homeless in some Florida town, and wanting anti-terrorism laws to apply to them).

And unfortunately, scum has a way of rising to the top. And no, I don't believe we'd all be corrupt if given that power, but those who are are going to be are drawn to it the most, and find it the easiest to make the dirty deals they need to. (And I'm not sure what to think of one US President in particular from before I was born...the guy was crazy, I wouldn't have allowed him anywhere near me or anyone I knew even when he was sober, certainly would NOT have had a beer with him, but he did a lot of things I think were good, even if I'm fairly certain he was being pragmatic about it. Actually, I prefer enlightened pragmaticists to idealists.)

There are some people I'd NEVER let babysit a kid. It has nothing to do with their demographic and everything with their behavior, particularly when it's a pattern.

And I will continue to identify that pattern, however problematic it may be (and how wrong I may be at times). The alternative is worse, or so it seems to me.



I was once friends with a philosophical nihilist, however. He thought the very idea of morality is what made for such problems that led to oppression, inquisitions, suppression of free thought and innovation, and the like. He definitely believed rebellion was our most noble attribute, and that if Eve were real then she was a heroine with humanity in her debt. Unfortunately, I'd lost contact with him before I saw Buffy season 6. I might've thought to had him watch just to get some commentary on it, assuming he would even bother (he was also one of those "kill your TV" people).

I doubt he'd have much good to say about Warren, however. He rejected morality because he felt that it led to evil oppression, not that he felt morality restrained us from being all that we could be. He did understand that society was better to have "I don't kill you, you don't kill me" (etc) in place. He was more of an artist than an academic.

And in this case, your concerns, while valid, don't really apply here. Warren isn't called evil because of his demographic or flouting traditional thought (if anything, he embraced a lot of traditional values rather than challenged them, even if he chose to "rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"), but because of what he did and why he did it.

But yeah, it runs into the same problem of identifying fake news, only for those who spread fake news to yell the loudest that everyone else, including fact checking sites that debunk them, are the fake news. Frustrating, that, and I'm at a loss at what can be done about it.
 
Last edited:
DeadlyDuo
DeadlyDuo
Some fact checking sites were successfully sued for being biased and untruthful. Also you need to watch how they word things because they don't always give you the full story when they "fact check".

AnthonyCordova

Earth Invasion Taskforce Unlimited
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
2,140
Location
Denver, Colorado
Sineya
@thrasherpix

I can't help but feel that you misunderstood my first post in some important respects, but as I'm no longer inclined to engage in long debates on BB, I'll leave it be. I do also want to give you credit for some original ideas too though, just to be clear.

My last contribution to this thread will be this:

"What is philosophical activity if it is not the critical work that thought brings to bear on itself? In what does it consist if not in the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently instead of legitimating what is already known?" -Michel Foucault

Foucault was thinking about something different than me here obviously, but it is the spirit of this quote which is what motivated me to respond to this thread in the first place. At the beginning of my first post I agreed that, as conventionally understood, Warren is evil. But as with so many topics of this nature, these sorts of discussions of a hackneyed and also categorical nature seldom lead anywhere new or interesting. I don't see the point in simply repeating the prevailing opinions and moral prejudices of the vast majority of people. We could all repeat to each other these hopelessly worn-out moral truisms (and to repeat a final time, by conventional moral standards, I agree that Warren is obviously evil) but I ask myself then what the point of such a discussion would be, and what there would be to gain, if all we do is reaffirm the norm and reaffirm what the majority of us already agree as true. So, as with the Foucault quote above, my first post was in the spirit of trying to change the register of the discussion, and to see if for once we might be able to think differently about morality, to leave behind the obvious as something that really does not need to be said anymore, because after all it is something we all take for granted, and to see "to what extent it might be possible to think differently instead of legitimating what is already known" as Foucault mentioned in a very different context but yet nevertheless a relevant one for us here, I believe.

Anyway, that's the last I have to say about this.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom