#Epicurean paradox

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Epicurean_paradox

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Reasons_for_theodicy

Theodicies are developed to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil.

In science, when an idea is falsified, it's either thrown out, or withdrawn and revised. In theology, you invent an entire bogus domain to pretend it's still true. Theodicy is that domain. The entire reason it exists at all is because the Problem of Evil shows the god claim doesn't work, but they won't admit it.

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

[lost-carcosa]

Sheldon Comics: Tune in next time when The Riddler works on the trolley problem

[richo1915]

“Who is this God person anyway?”

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, not only is it a wholly remarkable book, it is also a highly successful one – more popular than the Celestial Home Care Omnibus, better selling than Fifty-three More Things to do in Zero Gravity, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?

[distort1xn]

so, when i was still a little distort1xn and at uni, my favourite subject ever was philosophy. it’s why i’m SUCH a proponent for logical thinking and reasoning. now, one of the electives in this class was philosophy of religion, i.e. proving the existence of god (the judaeo-christian iteration of god). the lecturer for this elective was pretty old and not very engaging and loved getting into heated debates that he started himself with students who knew less than him and therefore weren’t his intellectual equals. he’s not the point of this post, but i mention him because he would never give us clear instructions for his assignments and so we often had to do tons of work for very simple essays that could’ve just been written based on our coursework, had he been a better lecturer.

the point is, one day we got an assignment that led me into the depths of our campus library (aside: the library is MASSIVE, multi-levelled – and completely underground; the dark academia bitches go crazy) to do some reading. during this reading, i came across a very interesting paradox that i’ve been thinking about ever since, but i couldn’t remember who posited it, and so haven’t been able to look it back up. now, in one of the episodes of this true story podcast i’m listening to (we’re all insane with devorah), the storyteller talks about leaving the church, and what had convinced her to do that was the epicurean paradox – the very paradox that’s been haunting me for years! adding a screenshot of the gist of the paradox, but don’t worry. i won’t make anyone learn ‘philosophy speak’ (fancy fucking english for zero (0) reason whatsoever). i’ll ‘translate’.

simplification:

if god has unlimited power (omnipotence – ‘all-powerful’), then he must know about all the evil and suffering in the world (omniscience – ‘all-knowing’). being all-powerful must then mean he has the power to change/stop all the evil and suffering. so, why doesn’t he? since he doesn’t, he can’t be as good as christianity paints him to be (omnibenevolent – ‘all-good/-loving’; one of the main positions in christianity is ‘god is love’ to mean god loves his entire creation and he is a universally accepted force of pure goodness and love). conclusion: god cannot be omnibenevolent.

if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he has the power and goodness to stop and desire to stop all evil and suffering. if he doesn’t, then he doesn’t see all the evil (i.e. he’s not omniscient, which makes him somewhat evil himself if he can find justifications for why certain clearly painful and awful acts don’t ‘count’ as evil and therefore aren’t meant to be stopped).

if god is omniscient and omnibenevolent, he knows about all the evil and suffering in the world and wants to stop it, but since evil still exists, he obviously can’t stop it, so he can’t be omnipotent.

this breaks down literally the entire doctrine of christian belief. christians believe in an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving god. but since that god cannot logically exist, christians literally believe in a fantasy.

all of this to say, i don’t reject religion and christianity out of hand. i see it in a psychological sense. we all have our comfort things, our crutches – beliefs and rituals that make us feel safe. i see religion as one of these. which means people murdering, massacring and damning others in its name are not good people, and not just because all of those actions themselves are reprehensible, but because religion isn’t a personal comfort to them. it’s a weapon – and, i feel we can all agree, weapons should only ever be used in DEfence, not OFfence.

this has been philosophy hour with distort1xn. thank you for coming to my ted talk.

[salchicharandom]

Epicurean Paradox

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Happiness

The philosophy of happiness explores the nature, sources, and significance of happiness in human life. It examines what constitutes true happiness, how it can be achieved, and its role in ethical and meaningful living. Philosophers have approached happiness from various perspectives, including ethical, psychological, and existential viewpoints, leading to diverse understandings of what it means to live a happy life.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Happiness:

Definitions and Concepts of Happiness:

Eudaimonia (Flourishing): In ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Aristotle, happiness is often equated with "eudaimonia," which is best translated as flourishing or well-being. Eudaimonia is achieved through living virtuously and fulfilling one's potential, rather than through the pursuit of pleasure alone.

Hedonism: Hedonism defines happiness as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This view, associated with philosophers like Epicurus, suggests that a happy life is one in which pleasure is maximized and suffering minimized. However, Epicurus emphasized simple pleasures and the avoidance of excess.

Ethical Theories and Happiness:

Utilitarianism: Utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argue that the right action is the one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. In this context, happiness is often understood as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle’s virtue ethics posits that happiness is achieved by living a life of virtue. Virtuous actions, in accordance with reason, lead to a state of eudaimonia, where individuals live in harmony with their true nature and purpose.

Deontological Ethics: While not focused solely on happiness, deontological ethics, as developed by Immanuel Kant, suggests that true happiness comes from fulfilling one’s moral duties. Kant argues that happiness is not the primary goal of moral action, but living morally can lead to a form of happiness tied to a sense of duty and integrity.

Happiness and the Good Life:

The Role of Reason: In many philosophical traditions, particularly in the works of Plato and Aristotle, happiness is linked to the exercise of reason. A life guided by rational thought and the pursuit of wisdom is seen as the highest form of happiness.

The Balance of Pleasure and Virtue: Philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics argue that happiness is not merely about pleasure but involves a balance of pleasure with virtue. Happiness is seen as a byproduct of living a virtuous life, rather than an end in itself.

Subjective and Objective Views of Happiness:

Subjective Well-Being: Modern discussions of happiness often focus on subjective well-being, which is the individual's self-assessment of their life satisfaction and emotional state. This perspective emphasizes personal experience and the psychological aspects of happiness.

Objective Well-Being: In contrast, some philosophers argue that happiness should be understood in objective terms, based on factors like health, relationships, and personal achievements. From this view, happiness is not just about how one feels but also about living a life that meets certain standards of well-being.

Happiness in Different Philosophical Traditions:

Stoicism: Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius argue that happiness comes from accepting the things we cannot change and living in accordance with nature. Happiness, in this view, is achieved through self-discipline, rationality, and emotional resilience.

Epicureanism: Epicurus taught that happiness is found in simple pleasures, friendship, and the absence of pain (ataraxia). He distinguished between necessary and unnecessary desires, advocating for a minimalist lifestyle that avoids unnecessary suffering.

Buddhism: In Buddhist philosophy, happiness is understood as a state of inner peace and enlightenment, achieved by overcoming desire and attachment. The Four Noble Truths outline the path to end suffering, which is seen as the key to true happiness.

Existential Perspectives on Happiness:

Sartre and Existential Freedom: Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre argue that happiness is not a predefined state but something that individuals must create for themselves through their choices. Happiness is linked to the authentic exercise of freedom and the responsibility to define one’s own existence.

Camus and the Absurd: Albert Camus, another existentialist, explores the idea that life is inherently absurd and that the search for meaning or happiness can seem futile. However, he argues that one can still find happiness in embracing the absurd and living fully in the face of it.

The Pursuit of Happiness in Modern Thought:

Positive Psychology: In contemporary philosophy and psychology, the study of happiness has expanded with the development of positive psychology. This field focuses on understanding and fostering the factors that contribute to human flourishing, such as positive emotions, relationships, meaning, and accomplishments.

Happiness and Society: Modern philosophers and social theorists explore the relationship between happiness and social conditions, including wealth, inequality, and political systems. Debates continue on how society can be organized to promote the well-being and happiness of its members.

Critiques and Challenges:

Hedonic Treadmill: One critique of the pursuit of happiness is the "hedonic treadmill" effect, where people quickly return to a baseline level of happiness despite changes in their circumstances. This challenges the idea that lasting happiness can be achieved through external factors alone.

The Paradox of Happiness: Some philosophers and psychologists argue that the direct pursuit of happiness can be self-defeating. Focusing too much on becoming happy may lead to anxiety or disappointment, while happiness often arises as a byproduct of other activities, such as meaningful work or relationships.

The philosophy of happiness offers a rich and varied exploration of what it means to live well. It challenges individuals to consider the sources of true happiness, the role of virtue and reason in the good life, and the balance between personal pleasure and ethical living. Whether seen as a subjective state, an objective condition, or a byproduct of living authentically, happiness remains a central concern in philosophical inquiry, reflecting the enduring human quest for fulfillment and well-being.

[quidam-sirenae]

People getting annoying in that epicurean paradox post. DNI unless you’ve read Lucretius.

[taln-femboy]

[witchofanguish]

The funniest response to the Epicurean Paradox is “evil doesn’t exist.” Did you read your book??

[wisteriasymphony]

Oh, I can answer this one! I'll take the bait! It comes down to a few things. First of all, her portrayal in canon as a one-dimensional "perfect dead wife/mother" conflicts with elements of Adrien's oh-so-tragic life. She's only been dead for a year, so elements like Adrien not being allowed to attend school with his peers or being pressured into working as a model are just as much on her as they are on Gabriel! Not to mention his lonely upbringing, lack of friends, and missed birthdays.

Of course, Adrien's positive view of his mother in no way conflicts with this reading of her. Childrens' relationships with their abusers can be incredibly complex, and it's entirely possible that Adrien was willing to forgive or ignore all of Emilie's harmful actions simply because making peace would have made his day-to-day life easier. Emilie was likely a much warmer, more affectionate parent even while isolating him from the rest of the world, hence why she's looked on so favorably—How is Adrien supposed to know that this is the bare minimum, when it's all he's known his entire life?

Emilie as a devouring mother versus Gabriel as a distant father also serves as great contrast. One parent "loves too much", the other "loves too little". (Furthermore, I like to take this in conjunction with the "Adrien is a copy of Emilie" readings to also bring up the contrast of exploiting Adrien for ego versus exploiting Adrien for profit.)

"But Wisteria," you say to yourself and the computer screen, "Why couldn't Emilie just be powerless to stop all of Gabriel's evil horrible actions? Maybe she wanted to let him go to school and didn't, or she wished she could reason to her husband about giving Adrien freedom but decided it was better to keep her son safe?" The issue is, lovely reader, that Amelie already fulfills that, and the two sisters are presented as opposites as of Representation. I have my own very small gripes about how Felix's backstory has so many elements that I was hoping to get out of Adrien, but I can admit that the two families are going to be different. To set up Emilie as this more rebellious sister with utopian dreams of love and freedom only to say she was powerless in stopping her husband from controlling every aspect of her son's life...? That's glaringly inconsistent. We have to remember that she had half of Adrien's amok. If she was against using it entirely, she could've easily convinced her devoted husband to take his half off and to store both halves somewhere safe.

The Agreste household falls into its own sort of Epicurean Paradox:

Emilie and Gabriel were genuinely in love with each other.

2. Emilie was a good parent to Adrien before her death.

3. Adrien's childhood is and was abusive.

If 1 and 2 are true, 3 would not be (ex: the amok dilemma I just outlined). However, we have evidence that 3 is true. Over the course of the show, Adrien's home life was elevated from just standard cartoon strict parenting to Gabriel being obviously neglectful, controlling, and in some episodes physically abusive.

So, either 1 cannot be true, and Emilie and Gabriel were not genuinely in love with each other (to the extent that Gabriel would not listen to Emilie's worries about her son, that is. I have no doubt that a million arguments can be made about them having something imperfect and codependent going on), or 2 cannot be true, and Emilie was complicit in or actively encouraged Adrien's isolation and neglect. And there's a lot more wiggle room to claim the latter!

Not to mention expanding Emilie beyond just the perfect dead wife trope gives her more depth as a character. Making her an imperfect parent isn't meant to overwrite any of the rose-tinted depictions of her we see in the show—Instead, it works in tandem with it! A seemingly perfect Madonna after her death, her flaws airbrushed away by the family that worships her even if the effects of her actions seep through the cracks now and then. Now that's compelling.

Also, making the poor little white guy suffer is incredible catharsis. Never forget the power of whump and angst, kids. It makes his theoretical triumph over escaping his family that much sweeter.

As I will also add, I do think none of this is inherently tied to sentibeingdom. I could talk more about my own readings and headcanons about Emilie's egotism specifically, but those could just as easily be fueled by a son that inexplicably resembles her in every way than a magical slave child creature, with Emilie's egotistical actions being supported more by what she does with her little mini-me rather than her actively making a mini-me. (Model Emilie should've been canon, yo. Adrien being forced into his mother's profession to be just like her is a great explanation for why he is where he is, and it only heightens the parallels between Gabemilie and Adrienette.) So I do think there is validity in criticizing that aspect of his character writing! Especially when the execution of the child abuse metaphor is muddied so much by also making the child abuse metaphor part of your disposable monsters-of-the-week without proper care being put into the transition from "thing you can throw into the sun without anyone batting an eye" to "living, sapient organism that deserves a chance at life too".

Tell me, do you actually like Adrien and Felix not being born the normal way, or are you just willing to accept it? I, for one, thought that was the biggest mistake since undoing Chloe's character growth, maybe even worse.

super unpopular opinion but im a huge fan of the idea. i think mainly because im obsessed with narcissistic emilie(thanks wisteria) and her creating a carbon copy of herself because she was so selfish, and that leading to her undoing, is such a cool idea.

not to mention all of the potential that comes with chat noir being a sentibeing. i mean every third fic goes into it, but hawk moth discovering him and forcing him to keep it from ladybug? i eat that up.

basically anything that adds interesting tension without taking me completely out of it, i don’t mind. the canon is already a shitshow, might as well give the talented fanfic writers more interesting concepts to work with

[insidemyrottenbrain]

Henry gets jealous because you spend time with Richard

The risk of jealousy - TSH

Henry Marchbanks Winter x GN!Reader

Dearest anonymous, I hope you can forgive him and his denial of jealousy.

The sharp claw of jealousy finally scratches the untouchable Henry.

I’ve always been incredibly particular about whom I associate with. The people around me need to be worthy. Now, I am well aware that my choice of words may make me sound arrogant, so allow me to explain: I want them to have shared interests, to be able to hold late-night debates on esoteric topics, while giving me a sense of belonging and consequently not tiring me out socially. I do not ask for much, really. Alas, one cannot always get what one desires.

The little group of which I’m currently a part of is… pleasant. The twins regularly host dinners which are, of course, the birthplace of many fights and arguments regarding the most trivial subjects that usually end up with Henry winning. Francis unhesitatingly puts his aunt’s house at our disposal whenever desiderium naturae strikes us and amusingly complains about some disease or other the whole way there. I even consider some of Bunny’s jokes witty on the rare occasions when he stops being insufferable. Unfortunately, they all give me a shallow sense of belonging that only manages to make itself felt in transit moments. However, Henry is different. With him, I feel content reading in silence after a long day, waking up in the same bed, legs intertwined under the soft cotton sheets he insists on buying with Apolon tugging at our lazy eyelids or simply challenging one another’s knowledge on whatever topic interests us at a given moment. A continuous childlike rendez-vous.

I do not know why I have been so platonically attracted to Richard of late. When he first joined our Greek class, he did not strike me as someone who would manage to integrate his lowly self into our complexly layered group, or even more, someone who would enjoy my presence. He was and still is flawed and ordinary. However, this normality flowing through every habit, every movement, or expression is a strange refresh in an intangible web of meticulously tangled appearances and facades. Richard is not some ancient scholar buried in paradoxical ideals, Gods-praising rituals, and glorious beliefs, but a modern human. He is aware of the current world, unisolated, present, an active participant. Not only does he attend parties but he also drinks, kisses, and loves strangers. Though an exaggeration to the unknowing eye, he seems to me quite the Epicurean in a cult of Stoics (excluding Bunny).

Despite my writings above which one might foolishly mistake as praise on my part, I must now dive into Richard’s own tendency to fictitiousness. He throws, here and there, long, lavish fabrications (with the aid of which he becomes unconsciously arrogant) and slight inexactitudes he considers too small to pass unnoticed by the attentive ear. And according to my fate and against my trusted intuition, I found myself unable to stop listening whenever he started talking about his (fake) childhood in California filled with swimming pools and orange groves and dissolute, charming show-biz parents, teenage years with a new girlfriend every night, the newest dramas (if they truly do exist and are not yet other fictions) circling Hampden.

There is a quirk. I notice it now, when we’re all standing in the day room of Francis’, or rather his aunt’s, manor. Charles is playing the piano filling the room with gifts for ears, showing off as he always does, while Bunny comments on one rhythm or another, challenging him, fueling him further. Everything is normal, except for one detail that does not escape me. Henry grows more agitated with every single one of Richard’s grant histoires. Albeit, the so-called agitations are rather minuscule, but I pride myself in being able to distinguish them. A small frown, creasing his pale forehead just the right amount for it to disappear just as quickly and nonchalantly as it came, a constant rub of his hand against his limped leg, and a novel proneness to small physical gestures: touching knees, pressing shoulders, his hand on the small of my back or idly playing with my fingers. I settle on questioning him later since I know he will not show any truths of his mind in such large company. 

We share a room, since we stopped bothering to hide our relationship long ago from the others. Henry’s already in bed, his nose buried in a book, dressed in his pyjamas, his initials embroidered upon the left side of his chest; H.M.W. If I had been told years ago that I was to be sharing a bed or be in a relationship with the person I suffered the least, the one that I had to compete with in Julian’s classes, the one that knew how to push my buttons I would have died of agony. But now I’m content. I know of the infatuation rendering me blind. My life has become a continuous torture, knowing that I wouldn’t be able to live without him. Just like Zeus who vows to fulfil his promise with a single sacred nod of his head, so am I unable to change the basis of my passion. He is in all my plans. In all the joys the future holds. In the dead of night, in Julian’s lessons, in the summer by the lake, instead of my mind’s eye being fully focused on one specific task, it always switches without fail to him.

I lower myself onto the bed next to him. “You seemed troubled earlier, in the day room.” I ask casually an indirect question.

“You’ve been spending an awful time with Richard.” He responds swiftly, tonelessly, simply pointing out a fact. 

I consider my answer for a moment. “I suppose so.” I hum, just as my head hits the pillow. “Don’t you find him intriguing? He watches the news on television.”

“Intriguing?” He blurts out, closing his book and putting it on the bedside table. Clearly, I have his attention. He turns on his side to fully face me, his hair falling over his forehead and slightly over his glasses. “His intriguing part eludes me. You are wasting your time with him, listening to his rambles.” He says clearly irritated, not bothering to keep up his stoic facade. “I assure you, you would be much better spending your time wisely.”

I frown. This is unusual of him. “He is in our class, is he not? I cannot avoid him.”

“Of course not, that’s not what I am suggesting.” His eyebrows remain furrowed. “What I do mean is that he does not bring you any benefit.” He continues in a monotone. “Why must you listen to him with the same attention and interest as you listen to me?”

Ah, I see. Henry is jealous.

“Is this jealousy?” I ask attempting desperately to restrain the slight smile forming on my face. 

“You are mistaken.” He ‘corrects’ me sharply, raising his eyebrows.  “I am merely stating that I see no point in your interactions with Richard when you could gain much more from being in my presence.”

I raise a sceptical eyebrow. He acts as if I wouldn’t mourn his death in the same way Achilles mourned Patroclus’, with rage and violence.

Words are imperfect communication devices, so I pull him down by the back of his neck and press my lips against his in a pleasant normality. I feel him slightly relax against me, his hand resting on my neck.

“Henry,” I mumble as we part, forcefully stretching our souls apart. I remove his glasses and place them down next to us and his forehead naturally falls against mine “you know better than to have such doubts.”

“I do.” He mumbles back, not bothering to deny his feelings anymore. “However, it proves to be quite difficult to not have them when-” He stops considering his words. “When you plague me so. There is no day or night in which your existence takes mercy on me and does not destroy the little rationality I have left.” He lowers himself down on the bed next to me. “You inexplicably and absurdly manage to be and eradicate my sanity.” He sighs. “And it certainly does not help when you look at Richard with the same eyes you look at me.” Henry mutters.

My hand finds his and I chuckle. “I’d argue I look at him with entirely different eyes.” At my comment, Henry raises an amused eyebrow. “Perhaps you’ll stop seeing shadows where there are none.”

That is all he needs to defeat his insomnia in my arms once again and to fall prey to sleep’s vicious grasp his body indistinguishable from mine under the sheets, sharing one breath.

[wisteriasymphony]

A little something based on @dreamer-in-a-far-away-land 's post about a self-aware miraculous au! :) I think it'd only be natural that, if they figured this out, our lovely duo would try and find a way around it....

The knowledge that Marinette was Ladybug was something that, by design... Adrien had no reaction to. He hadn't been given a reaction yet, so he thought. The event hadn't yet been written. ...The Epicurean paradox states that, given the presence of evil, either God is not all-powerful or all-good: Though he now believes whatever pulls the strings must be neither, the fact that him and Marinette have kept such a profane secret for this long is testament enough that God's watch is finite.

He looks around, the streetlamps glowing with an orange light that reveals no shadows. This far out into the city, there are no doors and there are no windows. Streets end (or begin?) in perfectly straight lines, and he's stood in places where his feet can reach the sky below them. To step off the ledge is to fall for longer than he has ever lived. It's a boring suicide, and so he quit the habit.

"You have the ring?" Marinette asks him. To ease her anxious mind, she never wears her pigtails at night ("What do you think would look more like... 'me'?" she's asked him, as Ladybug, many nights before. He never knew the answer.). She hopes it's harder to recognize her that way.

Adrien nods, taking the hexagonal box out of his back pocket. The engraved lid of the wooden box is merely a trick of the light, as when Adrien passes his hands over its surface it is the same uncanny smooth as everything he's ever felt.

He licks his bottom lip, feeling a cold against his face that isn't there. "You have the earrings?"

Marinette takes out the same exact box from her jacket pocket, thumbs brushing up against the box's sides. She's so clever, infinitely clever, and yet it's always on the brink of trying something that she gets a chilling anxiety that transforms her into another person entirely. Adrien couldn't say whether this is or is not the 'real her', because that would mean deciding a 'real him'. He wants to believe that the girl he fell in love with, through act of God or otherwise, will keep that bravery and cleverness.

They swap boxes silently, exchanging wishes of good luck through their gazes. Adrien turns away to get home before sunrise, confident in the plan, before Marinette's hand pulls him back.

"Wait!" she whispers. "...I still have the earrings."

Adrien flips upon the box he knows for a fact Marinette just traded him, and sees his own miraculous inside.

They stop for a moment, and the silence around the outskirts of the city that once gave them comfort has now become haunting.

Marinette's brows are furrowed, but she insists they try again. The boxes are traded once more, then opened: Marinette has the earrings. Adrien has the ring.

"We can't... We can't give them up... I thought that wasn't written, it's... No, we've traded them before, there's no way..."

Marinette drops her box, fingers raking through her hair as she hyperventilates. Not bringing the Ladybug to a fight—Impossible. Permanently handing over the miracle box to Alya—Impossible. Luka is gone because of things she told him, Chloe is gone because of things she told her, and the more times she tries and tries and tries leads to people "moving" or "catching flights" or just not telling her why they leave entirely. Marinette can't even reach Socqueline anymore, and the number she spent her first year in middle school memorizing now only leads to static on the other end of the phone. There's nothing to do about it, nothing at all!

"Marinette, it's okay," Adrien spoke calmly, bending down to pick up the earrings-box. "We just need to keep trying. I believe in you."

For a moment, two rings of the Black Cat Miraculous are in Adrien's hands.

...Adrien neglects to tell her this, fearing it would only worry her further. Juggling both boxes in one palm, Adrien takes Marinette's hand in his, interlocking their fingers.

"I know y... I know we're going to find a way out of this, Ladybug. We have to."

"We don't even know what we're fighting, Adrien!"

"Tomorrow, don't use your lucky charm. Don't do anything that your gut tells you to," he says. "If anyone has a chance at surviving that, it's you."

"...And what are you going to do?"

Adrien smiles, handing her one of the boxes. "Tomorrow, I'm just going to follow you, like I always have," he assures her. "We'll figure it out from there."

[fransfilth]

pekka auvinen the type of guy to hit you with the epicurean paradox and wants you to have an existential crisis over it

[typellblog]

i could solve the epicurean paradox tbh

[ntrlily]

There are like two kinds of arguments with the Epicurean Paradox-- One that fails to follow itself to the logical conclusion (ultimately already being defeated by the Epicurean argument from the start) or one that is failing to understand what the paradox is about in the first place (and also goes down one of the conclusions of the paradox, as a concession)

It's not a general anti-theist argument, it's an argument against a benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful god. Which is a somewhat specific concept that is not relevant to all religions but like, for ones that do put forth such a concept, well.

epicurean-paradox-flowchart.webp

[flagellant]

the existence of having hiccups is evidence that the epicurean paradox was right