But, why? "Good" doesn't necessarily prevail or is not equivalent to what prevails IMHO.
-
-
-
Replying to @HbdNrx
It's an interesting question but ultimately one for philosophical exploration
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @HalifaxShadow @HbdNrx
Let's say you are a "good" twitter account. One day you will die and it will end. Was it "not good" because it didn't survive ?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HalifaxShadow @HbdNrx
It was "good" and will always "have been good" (the latter in a cosmic sense) but simply won't exist in future points if time.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @HalifaxShadow
Sure, I mean, I don't really want to say that the dinosaurs are "not good" because they didn't survive. But getting eliminated seems bad...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HbdNrx
getting eliminated proves a narrow case like "not good at surviving a nuclear winter caused by a meteor strike"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HalifaxShadow @HbdNrx
...but a general "state of goodness" or "inherent goodness" sort-of thing can't really be determined solely based on survival or propagation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course, it doesn't even make sense for something that doesn't exist to define what good is. We're here, so we define it. Not existing...
-
-
Replying to @HbdNrx @HalifaxShadow
would not allow us to make any statements about what's good or not
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
