Why is modern art so bad?

[Jonathan]

Since my idea of Hell would be to wade through 2,428 of your comments on this blog to find your previous comments about Hell, and because you aren't willing to simply state what I asked you to simply state above about your beliefs on the subject, I have a simple solution: I hereby retract my comments about your view(s) of Hell, if any.

PDS, you gave in way too easily. You should have used Greg's own Doubly Irrational Genius Pose against him: When he challenged you to prove your position, you should have replied that you're not going to do his homework for him.

J

[Samson Corwell]

Arguing over the former would seem stupid, but would seem kind of pointless to be arguing over the form if neither felt that something wasn't at stake.

Yeah. They definitely feel that something important is at stake. They seem to need to believe in the illusion of their superiority. And not their superiority at producing anything, but at consuming! The "talent" that they are so proud of is that of being better than everyone else at liking things that others have produced. This "talent" most often just suddenly appears in people who have zero knowledge or experience with the art forms that they're judging. They just KNOW that their tastes are superior.

J

Now, apply the argument (it's note mine) to ethics. It would seem to affirm the existence of objective morality.

[Jonathan]

Arguing over the former would seem stupid, but would seem kind of pointless to be arguing over the form if neither felt that something wasn't at stake.

Yeah. They definitely feel that something important is at stake. They seem to need to believe in the illusion of their superiority. And not their superiority at producing anything, but at consuming! The "talent" that they are so proud of is that of being better than everyone else at liking things that others have produced. This "talent" most often just suddenly appears in people who have zero knowledge or experience with the art forms that they're judging. They just KNOW that their tastes are superior.

J

Now, apply the argument (it's note mine) to ethics. It would seem to affirm the existence of objective morality.

Explain what you mean.

J

[william.scherk]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it... ...

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

Find a quote where I said that or retract your lie.

I don't know if Greg is a Christian, though he does repeat a few Christian-sounding tropes, and names himself a Christophile with a smiley icon. He is probably not a member of a congregation, and has probably not 'signed' on to a particular denomination -- via baptism or via formal adherence to a creed or statement of faith.

Without trawling further in his entire body of comments, I do remember that he said Paradise and Hell are both here on earth, mixed as if oil and water.

Since Greg is unwilling so far to share his deeper beliefs about Hell, and since it is unclear if he is attached to any particular creed, and since this issue makes him peremptory and crabby, I don't think we are going to get any clarity.

That said, I think Hell is a generally well understood concept as it pertains to Christian faith. Some sects -- such as Jehovah's Witnesses -- do not believe in Hell as a place of eternal torment for sinners. They hold that those not chosen to live under God's Kingdom will be extinguished completely. Other denominations, mostly evangelical, trade on the idea of Hell and the lake of fire and so on. The idea of an eternal punishment for souls who fall away from God is I think one of the most powerful tropes of all the Christian traditions. That Greg does not accept this bit of orthodoxy is interesting to a degree.

It could be that Greg has a more or less JW take on eternal punishment, or believes as garden-variety atheists do, that death closes the book on individual human existence. We might be told about Greg's Afterlife Thoughts and find them to be a pastiche of Dominionist, Calvinist, Jain-ish, JW and a bit of karma kookiness. My bet would be on a nouveax Manicheaism soufle. But.

I think the less Greg tells about Hell, the better.

And to make sure no one goes down this road, a preview of we would probably get if Greg came out of the closet with regard to The Lake Of Fire...

First, murk, from a nasty, tendentious lecture to Francisco Ferrer on his bad attitude:

two individuals can live in exactly the same world...

...and one lives in Paradise...

...while the other lives in Hell.

Then more murk:

It's impossible for a person in hell to believe that another could be in Paradise. He can only believe that hell is all there is because that is all he sees.

Here's even more murk, plus a vague reference to dreadful punishments of Hell:

Unless one has the good fortunate of a Road to Damascus experience,

That kind of extreme life altering/life threatening experience can either be perceived as Divine beneficence, or dreadful punishment straight from hell.

But then again, Hell on Earth:

The idea of heaven and hell is just to keep us in line. The only real heaven and hell is here on earth.

I totally agree.

And each is self generated, or self inflicted, by our own actions. There's no need to wait until after you're dead to get what you deserve when it's served up fresh and piping hot right here and now.

Then another nasty exchange, this time with PDS:

There is a large and growing body of Christianity that has revived the doctrine of universal salvation that was held by many of the early Church fathers, and even Paul.

That belief does not absolve anyone of the moral accountability for their actions. I'm not referring to heaven or hell, I mean right here and right now.

which negates entirely the premise of your whacky "just desserts" philosophy. This trend and the theology behind it risks a theological "error" on the side of God's love, rather than God's wrath.

Punishment can't be "God's wrath" when it is your own free choice to do evil. Blaming (unjustly accusing) God does not prevent you from harvesting what you planted. You do that all by yourself.

This raises a question: are you going to be "held accountable" for your lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine, especially when you telegraph your lack of understanding to a largely non-Christian audience?

What Christianity means to me is a result of my own life. You need to grow up and go find out what it means for yourself, and give up blaming ( unjustly accusing) me.

I'm not your Mommie.

Then more murk and nastiness with Deanna:

In the next breath he says something about just desserts that implies he really has no tolerance at all for anyone's view but his own.[..,] Finally, in this thread, he shows his true character. In his view, there's an eternal lake of fire and brimstone reserved for those who do not agree with him. That is most definitely not a live and let live philosophy.

I didn't invoke that image, that's your own not mine. Paradise and hell are not nearly that melodramatic.

Paradise is simply happy grateful people going about their business of living productive meaning-filled lives.

Whereas hell is just perpetually emotionally offended victims angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) others.

And finally, the contemptuous assigning of his interlocutors to Hell. Whatever the heck that means.

It's obvious that most of you here do not agree with the practice of working exclusively for people who share your values, and that's your free choice to do business as you please. I'm free to choose to help decent honest upright people... and the rest can all go to hell.

I am happily ignorant of Greg's no-doubt-idiosyncratic beliefs about the the punishments of Hell. I hope I can stay ignorant.

"There's no need to wait until after you're dead to get what you deserve"

Edited September 12, 2014 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Since my idea of Hell would be to wade through 2,428 of your comments on this blog to find your previous comments about Hell, and because you aren't willing to simply state what I asked you to simply state above about your beliefs on the subject, I have a simple solution: I hereby retract my comments about your view(s) of Hell, if any.

PDS, you gave in way too easily. You should have used Greg's own Doubly Irrational Genius Pose against him: When he challenged you to prove your position, you should have replied that you're not going to do his homework for him.

J

Ooh--this should go to pay for view and Adam should sell popcorn.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

He didn't ask for an apology; he asked for a retraction. That's what he got.

Then that's that.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Nice try, William, but all your research doesn't pin the tail on the Greg donkey. The retracted statement was wrong. (Thanks for the wonderful illustration.)

--Brant

I have spoken! (Thunder, lightning, etc.)

[Samson Corwell]

Arguing over the former would seem stupid, but would seem kind of pointless to be arguing over the form if neither felt that something wasn't at stake.

Yeah. They definitely feel that something important is at stake. They seem to need to believe in the illusion of their superiority. And not their superiority at producing anything, but at consuming! The "talent" that they are so proud of is that of being better than everyone else at liking things that others have produced. This "talent" most often just suddenly appears in people who have zero knowledge or experience with the art forms that they're judging. They just KNOW that their tastes are superior.

J

Now, apply the argument (it's note mine) to ethics. It would seem to affirm the existence of objective morality.

Explain what you mean.

J

This man puts it best here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

That was a good piece of research.

I'm only confused about one thing. Greg generally responds. Not always. Sometimes he initiates, but mostly he responds. When you talk about murk and nastiness, you leave out all the names people call Greg (wacky, bad character, etc.) that he responds to.

Does murk and nastiness exist only when Greg speaks? If so, what do you call it when others are nasty to him out of the gate? Justice?

Michael

[moralist]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

Quit trying to weasel out of it.

Find a quote where I said that or retract your lie.

I'm still waiting for you to find what doesn't exist.

Greg

Greg:

Since my idea of Hell would be to wade through 2,428 of your comments on this blog to find your previous comments about Hell, and because you aren't willing to simply state what I asked you to simply state above about your beliefs on the subject, I have a simple solution: I hereby retract my comments about your view(s) of Hell, if any.

Let's let the audience decide, so to speak.

Fair enough?

No... but I shouldn't really expect more from you than slithering lawyerspeak because your own words above here are an accurate expression of the values by which you live.

You asked me to state my view concerning hell only because you didn't read my view concerning hell and so made up your own lying version just to use it as a derogatory comment..

The funny part is that I don't mind if you used what I had actually said about hell for your derogatory comment!

I stand by everything I've ever said, and have no problem letting the chips fall where they may. But you lied about what I said and that's why I called you out on it.

Now I'll tell you what I've always said about hell...

Hell is right here and right now in this world. No one personally punishes you for the evil you choose to do any more than gravity personally punishes you for choosing to step off of a cliff. You are the only one who pronounces punishment on yourself by the just and deserved consequences you yourself set into motion by your own evil acts. And no one will ever escape what they become as the result of the evil that they do.

There, that's my view on hell. It's always been, and it will always be.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

A retraction suggests the appropriateness of an apology. Which is why I suggested it. Anyway, that's what I would have done.

--Brant

sigh

[moralist]

He didn't ask for an apology; he asked for a retraction. That's what he got.

Then that's that.

--Brant

I know better than to ask for an apology from someone who is not sorry for lying because it would just be another lie.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

In principle I take an apology at face value. Anything else comes down I'll handle it apart.

--Brant

but it's academic

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

I can't address your post #118 in detail at this time. I'm having worsened troubles with my left eye, getting a series of injections, and my vision rapidly blurs when I try to work on a computer screen. With luck, the situation will be better in a week or so.

I just want to register that I read the post, and I think that you're subtly contradicting yourself by both claiming that skills can be objectively measured and can't be.

As to whether I think that people differ in abilities, yes.

And you still haven't said if you think that more skill was needed to paint da Vinci's "The Last Supper" than to paint the examples in post #19.

(From your post #120, you seem to think that the only measure would be adherence to reality or not.)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think da Vinci was skilled; I think Skilled was da Vinci.

--Brant

[moralist]

I do remember that he said Paradise and Hell are both here on earth, mixed as if oil and water.

That's correct, William... and no one here escapes what they become as the result of what they do. And like all truths, this one cuts both ways.

Since Greg is unwilling so far to share his deeper beliefs about Hell, and since it is unclear if he is attached to any particular creed, and since this issue makes him peremptory and crabby, I don't think we are going to get any clarity.

Ah, the queenly "we" again.

The imaginary collectivist spokesperson act bespeaks a certain weakness of character when a person can't speak honestly for themselves as an individual.

There's nothing deeper to share. I clearly described exactly what people are already experiencing right here and now as the consequences of their own actions. You're free to to embellish upon what I actually said with your own fantasies, and I'll patiently point out what you're up to.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I can't address your post #118 in detail at this time. I'm having worsened troubles with my left eye, getting a series of injections, and my vision rapidly blurs when I try to work on a computer screen. With luck, the situation will be better in a week or so.

Best of luck with the injections!

I just want to register that I read the post, and I think that you're subtly contradicting yourself by both claiming that skills can be objectively measured and can't be.

I'm saying that skills (all skills, not just artistic ones) can be objectively measured when we know the intended purpose to which those skills were put. So, depending on the situation, skills both can be objectively measured or can't be: they can be measured when we know the intention behind their use, and they can't be measured when we don't know the intention.

As to whether I think that people differ in abilities, yes.

And you still haven't said if you think that more skill was needed to paint da Vinci's "The Last Supper" than to paint the examples in post #19.

But I have said what I think: If the goal of both artists was adherence to reality, then Da Vinci's coloration is more skillful, and Florczak's anatomy is more skillful.

(From your post #120, you seem to think that the only measure would be adherence to reality or not.)

No, the standard of measure would be intentions. Only if the artist wished to adhere to reality would "adherence to reality" be the standard. If the artist intended to deviate from reality, and create a world of weightlessness in which everything radiated a faint blue light and human anatomical proportions were tweaked to make characters look more delicate and spider-like, then those intentions would be the standard of measurement.

J

[PDS]

He didn't ask for an apology; he asked for a retraction. That's what he got.

Then that's that.

--Brant

I know better than to ask for an apology from someone who is not sorry for lying because it would just be another lie.

Greg

There is little doubt that Greg has publicly disowned the traditional view of these matters, which I had incorreclty attributed to him. I take his comments at face value, and applaud him for rejecting this horrendous doctrine.

Having already retracted my statement, I now wish to apologize for attributing to Greg the mainstream Christian view of Hell.*

I do this as someone who Greg as described as a lying sleazeball lawyer-type, and also as someone for whom a retraction was demanded by Greg, but an apology was not needed, since, according to Greg, an apology would merely have been another lie. Since there seems to be some confusion about the utility of an apology versus a retraction, and why one is a lie but the other is not--especially when uttered by a notorious liar such as myself--I am erring on the side of offering both.

*And I'm not even crossing my fingers behind my back.

[william.scherk]

I do remember that he said Paradise and Hell are both here on earth, mixed as if oil and water.

That's correct, William... and no one here escapes what they become as the result of what they do. And like all truths, this one cuts both ways.

Here's that actual quote:

In terms of morality, while it appears that the world is generally devolving, this is not necessarily the case. This world is actually two worlds, Paradise and hell, which are all swirled around each other like water and oil, but without actually combining... and each of us is on a journey to one world or the other.

And whenever things in general get to stinking too much, the toilet gets flushed.

It isn't clear what this jumble of bromides means in terms others can understand. This world is two worlds. Those two worlds are Paradise and Hell. They are all swirled around each other without blending -- like oil and water. We humans are all on a journey to one world or the other. When the oil-water mix begins to stink, someone flushes the toilet.

Nobody escapes the toilet flushing, And it flushes both ways ...

Now, I forgive PDS for mistaking your idiosyncratic beliefs as being close to the Christian tradition (of hell and heaven). We are all on a journey to heaven or hell, so says you. Now we know a little bit more about what sets your beliefs off as different from Christian orthodoxies.

As far as I can tell -- since we don't have your detailed views on items such as an eternal soul, life after death, eternal joy in a non-terrestrial heaven once dead on earth -- yours seems, absent detail, a kind of Christadelphian, Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses take on the eternal grave. Sheol, Hades, Lake of Fire, these would be metaphorical for the Hell-On-Earth that evil lives in human beings. Heaven is the place where good lives in human beings on earth.

I'll ask, just for the sake of opening a new line of discussion: what do you actually believe happens after a human being dies? Does that human enjoy a chance of eternal life, or is his and our fate simply extinguishment?

Since Greg is unwilling so far to share his deeper beliefs about Hell, and since it is unclear if he is attached to any particular creed, and since this issue makes him peremptory and crabby, I don't think we are going to get any clarity.

Ah, the queenly "we" again.

The imaginary collectivist spokesperson act bespeaks a certain weakness of character when a person can't speak honestly for themselves as an individual.

Funny! We refers to your OL readers, plain and simple. Deeper beliefs about Hell would comprise your answers to the obvious questions (immortality, life after death, judgement, lakes of fire, toilets).

Surely you won't claim you have shared these aspects of your theology.

There's nothing deeper to share. I clearly described exactly what people are already experiencing right here and now as the consequences of their own actions. You're free to to embellish upon what I actually said with your own fantasies, and I'll patiently point out what you're up to.

Funny! There is no clarity on the underlying questions, the obvious ones. If you have expressed the totality of your thoughts and notions about Heaven and Hell, nobody knows yet what notions you hold about the aforementioned eternal soul, and its likely-to-you destination. If you prefer to keep those notions private, that's perfectly fine with me. I just find it amusing that these notions are still covered up while you say there is "nothing deeper to share." Taking you at your word, you may actually believe that there is a blankness beyond death. Blank. No heaven. No hell.

I am atheist. I don't have faith in gods. Yet I can agree with what you have disclosed so far, in a way: heaven and hell are in the here and now (there is no hereafter). People suffer through hellish punishments, torture, inhuman degradation here on earth -- sometimes justly, many times unjustly.**

Back to the continuing face-off between you and David (PDS). He retracted his statement that your God banishes some of his creatures to damnation, and torment. He also retracted his statements about preordination, removing the link to your "getting what they deserve" notion from his argument.

Again, I don't believe you have been fully forthcoming. We simply don't know if your notions of hell extend past the curtain of death. It might be interesting to deal with your further notions, but I don't think you are going to tell us more.

Here's what remains from David. My takehome is that he now accepts in some part that you do not believe in the orthodox/traditional/Catholic/Protestant version of everlasting torment of hell after death. He has his own theology that rejects the entire notion that a God would be so cruel. And he would urge God's blessings on you that your views do not comprise standard Christian dogma.

I truly believe that anybody who believes in the traditional notion of Hell is more or less slandering God. If Greg is not in that camp, then God bless him. The world needs more people who do not accept such absurd notions.

Greg and I may have our differences, but I do believe he sincerely believes in the God of the Bible. So if I have misstated his position on what I believe to be a very important issue, then he deserves more than a retraction. I agree with you.

So, there you go, Greg. You can choose to further illuminate your views on the 'afterlife' ... or you can choose not to do so. You might see and understand where David takes issue with you and where you two agree.

Paradise is simply happy grateful people going about their business of living productive meaning-filled lives.

Whereas hell is just perpetually emotionally offended victims angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) others.

It can be inferred from this that your concepts of heaven and hell do not extend to the after-life. In which case, you and David are on the same shore.

Hell is right here and right now in this world. No one personally punishes you for the evil you choose to do any more than gravity personally punishes you for choosing to step off of a cliff. You are the only one who pronounces punishment on yourself by the just and deserved consequences you yourself set into motion by your own evil acts. And no one will ever escape what they become as the result of the evil that they do.

There, that's my view on hell. It's always been, and it will always be.

I wonder what would happen if these exchanges were conversational, rather than episodic typed statements. I wonder if, sitting around the firepit chatting, you would say nothing to conversational questions like: "Do you think Hell exists in the afterlife? Do you think there is life after death? Do you think that Hell on Earth continues after the physical death of the evil or wrongdoing person? Who gets to go to heaven?"

See, Greg. We don't know your answers. If you have nothing to say about Heaven/Hell eternal, beyond death, if what you have written immediately above is the full extent of your notions, then maybe we owe you some cheer, some Randian cheer -- for your beliefs would then be much closer to the generally agnostic Objectivist position on gods, heaven, hell, afterlife, redemption, glory, achievement, morality and death.

-- another fork in discussion could be how we could know that a suffering or punishment is deserved on this earth. How is suffering to be judged, objectively, as deserved or undeserved? Is the Bible or Jesus Christ's gospel a good place to know about suffering, justice, just desserts, the wages of sin, redemption? Is Ayn Rand's corpus of wisdom compatible with a Christ-centred metaphysics?

Here's a bit of art to offer another side-exit to the imponderables above. It's by Syrian artist Hammam Jarabani.

_______________________

** One of the things that sometimes lodges in my intellectual craw are statements that 'in this life' punishments are justified, or that any such punishments are 'deserved.' Remembering Greg's conversations about just and deserved deaths of the firstborn male children of Egypt, it's hard to imagine what Greg would think of the victims of Assad's prison state, who were starved and tortured to death in terrible numbers:

(from the trove of smuggled photos by 'Caesar' who brought to the world's attention the systematic death-factories)

Edited September 13, 2014 by william.scherk

[moralist]

He didn't ask for an apology; he asked for a retraction. That's what he got.

Then that's that.

--Brant

I know better than to ask for an apology from someone who is not sorry for lying because it would just be another lie.

Greg

There is little doubt that Greg has publicly disowned the traditional view of these matters, which I had incorreclty attributed to him. I take his comments at face value, and applaud him for rejecting this horrendous doctrine.

Having already retracted my statement, I now wish to apologize for attributing to Greg the mainstream Christian view of Hell.*

I do this as someone who Greg as described as a lying sleazeball lawyer-type...

That was obviously in response to your behavior in your previous posts.

And concerning this night and day difference between then and now, can you explain the reasoning for your present sudden change of attitude?

Greg

[moralist]

Here's a bit of art to offer another side-exit to the imponderables above. It's by Syrian artist Hammam Jarabani.

_______________________

That picture evokes the question:

Where are her parents?

Children who aren't old enough to be morally responsible for their own behavior,

are fully exposed to the consequences set into motion by the behavior of their parents.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

According to Rand, a sense of life is based on normative abstractions called metaphysical value judgments.

These are different than ethical value judgements, which deal with what is good and bad.

Metaphysical value judgments deal with what is important and what is not.

An artist shows what is important to his or her view of existence by what he or she focuses on and leaves out. Things that are focused on are important to the artist on a metaphysical level. Things that are left out are not important or trivial to existence.

Using that standard, the artist in the painting above thinks existence unfolds in poverty. Not that there is no abundance. There might be to the artist. But the important thing is the poverty. That is what the world mostly looks like to the artist.

The same standard can be used for the technique where the important thing to the artist's view of existence is when he or she has a fuzzy view, not a clear one.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but those standards are in her writing. I can supply quotes if necessary.

Michael

[moralist]

According to Rand, a sense of life is based on normative abstractions called metaphysical value judgments.

These are different than ethical value judgments, which deal with what is good and bad.

Metaphysical value judgments deal with what is important and what is not.

Those two resonate harmoniously whenever good is judged to be more important than bad.

An artist shows what is important to his or her view of existence by what he or she focuses on and leaves out. Things that are focused on are important to the artist on a metaphysical level. Things that are left out are not important or trivial to existence.

Using that standard, the artist in the painting above thinks existence unfolds in poverty. Not that there is no abundance. There might be to the artist. But the important thing is the poverty. That is what the world mostly looks like to the artist.

The same standard can be used for the technique where the important thing to the artist's view of existence is when he or she has a fuzzy view, not a clear one.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but those standards are in her writing. I can supply quotes if necessary.

Michael

This highlights our wholly subjective nature... An artist pictorially represents their subjective view of the world, and it is then subjectively interpreted by the viewer!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

According to Rand, a sense of life is based on normative abstractions called metaphysical value judgments.

These are different than ethical value judgments, which deal with what is good and bad.

Metaphysical value judgments deal with what is important and what is not.

Those two resonate harmoniously whenever good is judged to be more important than bad.

An artist shows what is important to his or her view of existence by what he or she focuses on and leaves out. Things that are focused on are important to the artist on a metaphysical level. Things that are left out are not important or trivial to existence.

Using that standard, the artist in the painting above thinks existence unfolds in poverty. Not that there is no abundance. There might be to the artist. But the important thing is the poverty. That is what the world mostly looks like to the artist.

The same standard can be used for the technique where the important thing to the artist's view of existence is when he or she has a fuzzy view, not a clear one.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but those standards are in her writing. I can supply quotes if necessary.

Michael

This highlights our wholly subjective nature... An artist pictorially represents their subjective view of the world, and it is then subjectively interpreted by the viewer!

Greg

This could mean that "Guernica" is war-mongering and pro-Franco?

--Brant

I believe in the objective view of it being anti-war and anti-Franco (maybe anti-war because Franco was winning?), but the painting itself to be subjectively valued as all values are subjectively valued though not all values are subjective--that is, objective values are objective to the organism qua organism (food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc.), but variably--subjectively--valued depending on time and circumstances and felt need

[william.scherk]

Here's a bit of art to offer another side-exit to the imponderables above. It's by Syrian artist Hammam Jarabani.

_______________________

That picture evokes the question:

Where are her parents?

It's by a Syrian artist, as I noted. Looking at the background, it looks to be a city scene after many explosive destructive events, so it could be anywhere from Aleppo to the dense suburbs of Damascus. So, the parents will likely be under the rubble, combing the rubble for other children, or, I suppose, already dead from a previous bombing -- or perhaps the parents have disappeared into the maw of the Syrian detention system.

Or she may be an orphan, in the care of the two stunned people in the mid-ground. In any case, I thought this picture would please you, Greg, since it puts forward a simple, straightforward character -- in the midst of a type of 'hell.'

A little probably unnecessary background -- roughly half of Syrian children have been displaced. Around thirty thousand children have lost their lives, and a larger number maimed.

Here's a picture with a slightly changed background. This might make the subject matter and sense of life and metaphysical values more clearly apparent:

Children who aren't old enough to be morally responsible for their own behavior,

are fully exposed to the consequences set into motion by the behavior of their parents.

There's a lot of that stuff -- consequential behaviour -- going around, in Syria, if not in that picture; I thought the largest consequences attach to the largest events depicted. In other words, raining bombs on civilian areas under seige has consequences. Like the little girl.

If I give a Christian reading to the picture, using Greg's apothegm about responsibility, then the orphan girl's losses of parents, home, normal life -- are probably a direct result of the parents' actions. If the background is Aleppo, then the girl is receiving the just and deserved consequences of the parents' behaviour.

With the background Aleppo replaced by the bomb scene in Oklahoma City, I imagine a Greg-ish question would be the same: where are the parents? As in the Aleppo scene, I'd say probably dead or maimed.

Maybe by 'parents' we could think of the entire older generation, not only the parents, but the actual forces governing the larger conflict. Then the bad guys would not necessarily be young Jasmine's parents, who were stupid enough to bring their children to work, knowing that McVeigh's plan was in motion. The bad actors might be at the top of the chain of command that unleashed the destruction.

Which would make McVeigh responsible for the losses in the second place, and Bashar Assad responsible for the losses in the first. Which neatly absolves the girl of moral responsibility.

Another image that might raise other questions:

I don't believe that Greg, had he raised children, would ever give his children free rein to be irresponsible, to be cruel, to be hateful, to be needlessly aggressive, to steal, to use physical force unprovoked, to lie, to bully or degrade another child ... I tend to believe that Greg would hold his children morally responsible for their own behavior -- when that behaviour is under the control of the children.

Greg, did you beget children in this life? If so, at what age did you consider your boy (your girl) morally accountable for their own actions? I'm guessing somewhere around puberty, maybe later.

Edited September 14, 2014 by william.scherk