Philosophy Equivalent Exchange

I don't know if i put this up in the right forum or not. If i didn't, then please move it.

Anyways, a quote that applies to the our very lives was mentioned in Full Metal Alchemist.

"To obtain, something of equal value must be lost." Or "to give life, you have to take life."

Let's take an example.

Two people are in the elections for becoming president. We all know that whoever wins is the leader of the country, and whomever looses will not. Now, for one of the two people to gain that sort of lifestyle, they have to give something up, correct? For the guy that wants to be a president to get that sort of life, he has to take it from his opponent, and vice-versa.

This also applies to the regular facts of life. Like, for example, to get food, we have to give money (OBTAIN food, LOOSE money). Or, to gain knowledge, you have to sacrifice time to study (Gain and Sacrifice).

Now, what i want to hear from other poeple, is that if anyone thinks that this is always true. If not, then why?

-Seishin

 

I believe in what Armony said.

I believe that already speaks for itself.

- Kaiyon

 

Thermodynamics.

 

woah. big words. anyway, i don't think that it's always like that. some people can just give.

like lets say that there's this really poor person who didn't do anything for society, or give anything to anyone, etc. but some good hearted person comes around in his car and gives him $100. the poor man only takes, and doesn't give anything.

there's also people who steal things. they only take, no take.

but then again, there's those few people around the world, who just give, but get nothing in return.

*sniff* like my NARUCHAAAAAAAN!!!!

^___^

 

but the person who gave him the 100 dollar bill is giving up something in order for that person to be happy so an exchange is still made and as for the people who steal, they are risking the chance to get caught so theyre actually putting their freedom on the line. if they are caught, they go to jail. freedom for goods. still and exchange

 

So who else thinks Manhatten was ACTUALLY the equivalent of 20 dollars worth of beads?

 

Not always equal.

Take the open source economic model, for example. You dedicate some of your time to produce something. The time you spent might as well be the cost of a similar product (i.e. photoshop, etc). But you decide to give it for free.

What do we get? Many people gaining something, for nothing.

It's an interesting quality of open source software. Its value is multiplied, not divided, by the number of users. Of course, when you start charging for it, the magic disappears and it becomes a means to accumulating money.

 

I might go with somewhere in-between, if there's such a thing. There would be times where 'tis true and not.

 

I believe if I getting everything ya'll are talkin about.Please forgive me if i'm
doing this wrong or I don't get it!But anyways I think that you'll never get anywhere in life unless you lose something you had or something you need a long the way.That's the way people get stronger is by knowing they gave up
something in order to be where they are today.I'm sorry if I don't have this
conversation right..

 

I think thats a very good view on the subject Seeshylover1#, it is true that something must be given to gain something...my analogy is this: love, for example, is given to someone freely, but the person who gives the love is at risk of being pushed away. It is also true that a person has unsurmountable amounts of love and really when you give love you are only giving a person the knowledge that you care. The equivalent exchange theory might work in logic, but sometimes the exchange isnt equivalent, that is the imperfection of this theory. If it was just an exchange theory that required you to lose and to gain something then it would mean something, but the basis for the Equivalent Exchange theory is "Equivalent" exchange not one sided exchange, or two thirds exchange, but "equivalent" exchange... that is my opinion

 

Love is free, you dont have to give anything for it<<-- sounds nice, doesnt it?
However, in reality you have to give your time to the person you love, you worry about the one you love so love takes your energy. Basically, i agree with you Seishin, to gain something you have to loose something. Except i dont really understand that "to give life, you have to take life" thing. When person is born, no one dies(except in rare cases when mother dies in child birth). But i guess its something to do with alchemistry.

 

The stuff on your dinner plate used to be alive.

 

not always, what if im vegan?

 

Plants are alive too. Vegetarianism has come to mean the practice of only killing and devouring living things that can't scream or fight back and feeling morally superior because of it.

Note: This doesn't apply to people who do it for, say, religious reasons. I think we all know the sort of vegetarian I'm referring to here.

 

This kind of reminds me of Newton's third law of motion; "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". When you step on the ground and equal force is being exerted back to yourself.. This can be seen a bit better when you get off a fishing boat onto a pier and the boat pushes backwards - you move forward whereas what you step on has an opposite reaction. For something to be gained, an inversion of equal amount must happen.

Equivalent exchange might work in the physical world but you don't always get an equal reaction in the way of things.. like say a mass of land you buy for cheap which ends up being a gold mine. This is something that they began to notice in Full Metal Alchemist also when a baby was born.

 

whatever happens, who are we to put a value on any life, plant, animal, or human? or land, clean air, or anything that isnt completely regulated for that matter?

 

Who are we not to? If we didn't say "Ok, these aren't so worthwhile", nobody would ever be fed. And in letting ourselves die, we assign a value to our lives (that being zero). No matter what, you do invariably place values.

 

well of course but theres a difference between, "if i dont eat this i'll die" and "we really dont need these people..."

 

I fully agree with this theory.

I genuinely also believe you give, you receive.

What you give, is what we get back in return.

 

equivalent exchange. hmmmm.... well i believe in the theory. i live in a city and theres lots of homelss people and i usually give them my spare change and small bills. this makes me feel like a good person. allthough im losing money im gaining good feelings. so it all works out in the end. i got a soft hearte for homeless people. except the ones that try to rob me.