Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. It is a philosophical razor that suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior. It is probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, [ 2 ] who submitted the statement to Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!
…it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies.
In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate (shave off) unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions. [ 1 ] Examples
For example, “deforestation and floodplain development” by humans turn high rainfall into “devastating floods and mudslides." When humans damage coastal reefs, remove mangroves, destroy dune systems, or clear coastal forests, "extreme coastal events cause much more loss of life and damage.”
In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed, or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest", in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency and productivity because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of ...
2) Ressentiment, as a personal disposition, has its genesis in negative psychic feelings and feeling states which most people experience as normal reactive responses to the demands of social life: [19] i.e., envy, jealousy, anger, hatred, spite, malice, joy over another's misfortune, mean spirited competition, etc. The objective sources of such ...
In master morality, "good" is a self-designation of the aristocratic classes; it is synonymous with nobility and everything powerful and life-affirming. "Bad" has no condemnatory implication, merely referring to the "common" or the "low" and the qualities and values associated with them, in contradistinction to the warrior ethos of the ruling ...
An influential theory of epistemic injustice is that of British philosopher Miranda Fricker, who coined the term in 1999. [2] According to Fricker, there are two kinds of epistemic injustice: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. [3] Related concepts include epistemic oppression and epistemic violence.