The Inconstant Gardener

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should we not be upset?
To give another analogy, when a farmer kills one of his livestock for meat, do you believe:
a) it is not upset.
b) it shouldn't be upset.
c) it could be upset but shouldn't be.

Are you possibly saying that although we might not like dying, we should be understanding of the gardeners desires? Or are you saying we are simp ...[text shortened]... er at explaining than div, who just kept repeating it or using various question dodging tactics.

Let us stick with the original analogy (thread creator's prerogative) as the farmer and his sentient livestock change the dynamics somewhat of the conversation.

The inconstant gardener is 'indifferent' to the individual plight of a plant in his garden. He gives no mind whatsoever to the plant's happiness or future well-being, beyond his own landscaping. If a plant's position displeases him he will pluck it out and discard without a second's thought or a moment's guilt.

If this was the nature of God and he was by definition distant, cold and indifferent, and we to him 'only ever' disposable plants barely worth his attention, what would be the justification for us being upset? How have we been let down exactly? What promise has he gone back on? How has he let us down? - Things are what they are. Is the daisy upset to be a daisy, or is it just,...a daisy. Is it logical to get upset at the rain or upset at the crocodile who tries to make you his lunch.

It is not about being understanding of the gardener's desires, but the gardener's nature and relationship with his plants.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Let us stick with the original analogy (thread creator's prerogative) as the farmer and his sentient livestock change the dynamics somewhat of the conversation.

The inconstant gardener is 'indifferent' to the individual plight of a plant in his garden. He gives no mind whatsoever to the plant's happiness or future well-being, beyond his own landsc ...[text shortened]... rstanding of the gardener's desires, but the gardener's nature and relationship with his plants.

Good reply.

I'm reminded of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said about intelligent life visiting us.
Would they treat us as dumb animals?
I'll try and find the video later.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Good reply.

I'm reminded of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said about intelligent life visiting us.
Would they treat us as dumb animals?
I'll try and find the video later.

Thanks.

I did hold back a little, as wanted to leave twhitehead some room to wriggle. 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should we not get upset? Your logic eludes me.

This is how the ridiculous argument between you and divegeester started.

You come straight in with an aggressive post to what is a fairly light-hearted thread.

Given the analogy (we are vegetables & God is a gardener) I think
we should not be upset if the garden is re-landscaped. I think divegeester
means "upset" in the sense of "upset with the decision" (because of course
we would be upset at being dug up!!).

The analogy is to point out the huge gulf between a god and men.

As I've said Neil DeGrasse makes a similar point but with Alien intelligence.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

I'll try and find the video later.

Here it is.
Not sure I agree with it.
But thought provoking.
YouTube

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Let us stick with the original analogy (thread creator's prerogative) as the farmer and his sentient livestock change the dynamics somewhat of the conversation.

Those changes might help to highlight whatever it is that I am missing, as nothing you or div have said appears to not apply to such a scenario, yet you both state that it would be different.

The inconstant gardener is 'indifferent' to the individual plight of a plant in his garden. He gives no mind whatsoever to the plant's happiness or future well-being, beyond his own landscaping. If a plant's position displeases him he will pluck it out and discard without a second's thought or a moment's guilt.
Agreed, but it is not the gardeners feelings that are at issue.

If this was the nature of God and he was by definition distant, cold and indifferent, and we to him 'only ever' disposable plants barely worth his attention, what would be the justification for us being upset?
So its a question of justification based on some supposed 'rules of the game' that the plants are supposed to automatically agree with?

How have we been let down exactly? What promise has he gone back on? How has he let us down?
Let down? You only get upset when you are let down? So unless I have promised not to murder someone, they have no right to be upset when I do murder them as I won't be letting them down?
I am not getting it.

- Things are what they are. Is the daisy upset to be a daisy, or is it just,...a daisy. Is it logical to get upset at the rain or upset at the crocodile who tries to make you his lunch.
Yes, I get very upset when the crocodile tries to take a bite out of my leg. Don't you? You just smile and offer the other leg? Seriously?

It is not about being understanding of the gardener's desires, but the gardener's nature and relationship with his plants.
I suspect it is about the understanding of the word 'upset'. Does it mean 'to blame someone for letting you down'? To me it has a wider range of meaning, but I realise now that you and div may be giving it a very narrow meaning.
So would you say you might be annoyed, unhappy, even angry perhaps, but not upset?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think divegeester means "upset" in the sense of "upset with the decision" (because of course
we would be upset at being dug up!!).

And I say that as a carrot, I would be upset with both the decision and the action.

What does the phrase 'upset with the decision' mean to you? Can you rephrase it in other words?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This is how the ridiculous argument between you and divegeester started.

You come straight in with an aggressive post to what is a fairly light-hearted thread.

And he could easily have said it was just a light-hearted remark (which was not thought through). He could also have chosen to try and explain what he really meant. But he didn't. He chose to duck and weave and try and change the statement etc and various other bad behaviour in supposed retaliation for perceived slights.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The analogy is to point out the huge gulf between a god and men.

As I've said Neil DeGrasse makes a similar point but with Alien intelligence.

I understand the analogy. I don't understand why you think we would just sit back and let aliens wipe us out and not be upset about it.

"Oh yes your worshipful alien. My son is in the basement, please go kill him too, as I recognize your vast superiority!"

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the thread I recall, there were more than just me and googlefudge. You are free to look it up and prove me wrong. You are also free to try and find an independent party for this thread that thinks you are making sense and not just question dodging. I would be more than happy to hear an explanation from someone else because it is becoming patently obvio ...[text shortened]... k to the OP but realized your error when I questioned it, but you are incapable of admitting it.

You brought the topic of that other thread up, not me. So if you feel the need to go find some evidence to satisfy your yearning need to be right, then I suggest you go and find it. Furthermore it was you said "everyone" agreed with you, when it was you and googlefudge, and even if another person did briefly step in, it still isn't "everyone". For someone who comes across as so pedantic over syntax and every little tiny thing that gets said in every little post, you seem to be lacking in self discipline on this piece.

I haven't had to find someone to support me as at least two people here have; both in terms of my point in this silly exchange with you, and in terms of your initial aggressiveness. Which I readily admit I respond poorly to.

I see you chose to ignore my attempt on the previous page to bridge the chasm of misunderstanding between us; GoaD actually summed up my initial light-hearted comment quite succinctly. Why you seem incapable of seeing what he saw in my words is for you to consider if you can be bothered to do so.

Your inadvertently comical sentient hydrangeas post would have made me smile had I not been so irritated at the time. Once again my irritation with you and your jibes has deteriorated into insults, I apologise for my part in that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I understand the analogy. I don't understand why you think we would just sit back and let aliens wipe us out and not be upset about it.

"Oh yes your worshipful alien. My son is in the basement, please go kill him too, as I recognize your vast superiority!"

Try this.
You are planning to dump your girlfriend.
Who just happens to be the little sister of the biggest thug and local crime boss.

Your friend says
" OK - but don't get upset when he breaks both your legs"

Now you are arguing "Of course he should be upset if his legs get broken"!
But that is totally missing the meaning of "upset" in the original sentence.

Divegeester iis not saying we should not be annoyed when a god destroys us.
He is not condoning the god on any moral grounds.

He is saying; Don't be surprised if an omnipotent being couldn't careless about us.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Try this.
You are planning to dump your girlfriend.
Who just happens to be the little sister of the biggest thug and local crime boss.

Your friend says
" OK - but don't get upset when he breaks both your legs"

Now you are arguing "Of course he should be upset if his legs get broken"!
But that is totally missing the meaning of "upset" in the original sentence.

In my understanding of the sentence, your friend is basically saying 'well its your own fault, you should have seen that coming'. If anything your friend is advising you not to dump your girlfriend.

What does it mean to you?

Because I still, despite all the explanations, fail to see how it applies to the situation in the OP.

And why did div and GoD say that having animals in the analogy would change the situation - whereas you seem quite comfortable having a human be the victim?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
alas what happens to a garden if one simply does nothing to it?

Who knows?

You might get plants engaging in cross-pollination, asexual reproduction or other unnatural acts.

Now, in the early years of a garden the gardener will tell you to dig such plants out and discard them on the compost heap.

But later on, the under-gardener will explain that this was only the right approach for certain plants at certain times.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In my understanding of the sentence, your friend is basically saying 'well its your own fault, you should have seen that coming'. If anything your friend is advising you not to dump your girlfriend.

What does it mean to you?

Because I still, despite all the explanations, fail to see how it applies to the situation in the OP.

And why did div and ...[text shortened]... gy would change the situation - whereas you seem quite comfortable having a human be the victim?

The relationship between gardener and plant is very different from the relationship between farmer and his livestock. I'm sure you see that and how the change of analogy changes the discussion at hand. (For example, one significant disparity is that a gardener can be completely indifferent and 'hands off' from the seeds he has planted, while a farmer maintains a vested interest in his animals, needs to look after their welfare, feed them and so on).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The relationship between gardener and plant is very different from the relationship between farmer and his livestock.

Is it? I don't see it.

I'm sure you see that and how the change of analogy changes the discussion at hand.
No, I do not see it.

Would you for example say to a mole in the garden: "don't get upset if the gardener sets mole traps"? Is the difference one of sentience or is it about whether or not the farmer has a vested interest?

(For example, one significant disparity is that a gardener can be completely indifferent and 'hands off' from the seeds he has planted, while a farmer maintains a vested interest in his animals, needs to look after their welfare, feed them and so on).
How does that change the situation under discussion? If you lived in Livingstone where there simply isn't enough rain to be 'hands off' with most plants, would that change the situation?
Would it change if the gardener were in fact a farmer and desired to get a good harvest from the crop? He now has a vested interest in his plants.
Would you still say 'don't get upset when it comes to harvest time'?

Although the OP and divs response may be considered 'light hearted', the actual issue is central to theism. Many theists have expressed the opinion that God is so far above us that we should simply accept without question anything he dictates. Several atheists on the other hand have stated that even if they believed a God existed they would not accept passively every dictate said God came up with. And with respect to divs post, the issue is not so much whether or not you accept it, but whether or not you think it is fair. I know that English usage varies around the world, so it is possible that the rest of you have a different understanding of the phrase, but to me, when someone says 'don't get upset about...' they are implying that you cannot lay the blame somewhere else and you should be accepting of the results because it is your own fault.
If the phrase means something else in other parts of the world, please enlighten me.