Philosophy of Conquistadorianism: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Philosophy of Conquistadorianism » Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism
Otherwise known as Opportunism

Page: 1 2 3

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:09 AM:	#26
Benkei wrote: She had to hate Kant just to be able to pursue her vision of man as a rational being. Kant's work is a limitation on reason and rationality because we are in essence blind due to the fact that we perceive in a certain way and therefore incapable to escape our limited, human perception. In the end Rand herself with her hatred for various philosophers that didn't fit her conceptual universe was a creature of emotion rather than reason... the irony of which should not be lost on those who consider themselves objectivists. It is interesting that I probably had only the vaguest understanding of Kant before reading Rand. So I was a little perplexed at Rand's preoccupation with Kant. However, the more I learn about modern philosophy, the more I am convinced that Rand was on the right track in her criticism of him. Even if Kant had a valid point or two here and there, and even if Rand overvalues reason, it remains the case that much of what is wrong with modern philosophy can be traced to Kant. Just to pick one example quite at random, Rawls insane philosophy is little more than warmed over Kantism.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:16 AM:	#27
Yes, both philosophers you haven't read, so excuse me if I don't value your opinion with regard to either highly.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:08 AM:	#28
coolazice wrote: No. 'Gift' is an unnecessary value judgement. An unhappy person may take from the first principle that life is an undeserved nightmare. And it is no good to argue that they can simply reject the nightmare by committing suicide - since some of them try quite often. It is true that "gift" is a value judgement but is it unnecessary? You anticipate the most obvious argument in support of the value of life but your argument is unpersuasive. It is true that not everyone who chooses to reject the gift succeeds in their attempt but as anyone familiar with suicide will tell you, those who fail are usually not serious about doing the deed but are instead ususally using the suicide attempt as a cry for help. Suicide is just too easy. coolazice wrote: cortes wrote: What this implies is that we ought to live in a perpetual state of gratitude for the opportunity that life presents to us. A man who develops terminal cancer, through no fault of his own, has not been cheated of life. Indeed, were he to have died in childbirth he would already have lived longer than he deserved. Again, this does not follow at all. It might imply to the unhappy person that we 'ought' to live in a perpetual state of anger and resentment. There is no logical reason you can provide for us to see the glass half full instead of half empty - and no 'ought' follows from this even if we do see it as half full. There is no reason to feel gratitude towards something undeserved, and certainly no moral obligation. Would you be willing to accapt that we "ought' to opt for truth and/or happiness? If not, you're using "ought" in a way that I am unfamiliar with. (Note that the entire point of these two principles is to refute any claims of moral obligation.) coolazice wrote: Here you are confusing the meaning of the word deserved. We do 'not deserve' life in the sense that a stone does 'not deserve' to fall into a pond. This does not at all imply that if the stone got what it 'deserved' it would not fall into the pond. In fact, it is quite clear that the word 'deserved' is inapplicable in this case. There is no actual 'deserving' at all, merely a process which happens. The same is true of life. But this in no way entails that we owe our existence to injustice. This is a non-sequitur. The word "deserve" is certainly applicable in that no small number of people claim that they have an inalianable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:26 PM:	#29
cortes wrote: The word "deserve" is certainly applicable in that no small number of people claim that they have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, I think most people are talking about these inalienable rights within a 'social context'. They are not saying that the 'universe' owes them these rights. They are saying that the society in which they live should value their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unless you define the universe as an 'entity', then these 'inalienable rights' are meaningless. In other words, you would have to ascribe to the universe a 'meaning' in order to justify your terminology. cortes wrote: Viewing the world through the prism of these two fundamental principles, life is a wonderful opportunity where our will is free to pursue our desires. We do not have to believe that the world was created for our benefit alone in order to view the world as a playground and to go out and play in it. These two fundamental principles are not fundamental. They involve too many assumptions to be fundamental. They are more like value judgements. I think you want to start with these ideas and then prove that they work to enhance peoples lives and lead them to success. This might be applicable to psychology, but you have presented no real 'proofs' or any valid arguments to support them in the area of philosophy. I thought coolazice made a good point when he asked if you did not owe someone something if you had promised them something. I might add that most of us do owe other people something. We owe our parents, our friends, and we owe society a degree of civility. We are not born in a vacuum. We are born into a family and society. We owe society for our language and ability to read and write. There are countless influences that have shaped our lives and mentality. Some of it have been by people that had our interests at heart, rather than their own.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/07/08 - 09:17 PM:	#30
optrader wrote: But, I think most people are talking about these inalienable rights within a 'social context'. They are not saying that the 'universe' owes them these rights. They are saying that the society in which they live should value their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are saying that they are owed these rights. From where is irrelevant. They are making claims of value by virtue of their mere existence. I find it most ironic that you should complain about the implied value judgements at the same time you claim different value judgements. optrader wrote: These two fundamental principles are not fundamental. They involve too many assumptions to be fundamental. If so then you should be able to construct a refutation of them. Instead you seem intent on quibling about word choice. optrader wrote: I thought coolazice made a good point when he asked if you did not owe someone something if you had promised them something. I might add that most of us do owe other people something. We owe our parents, our friends, and we owe society a degree of civility. We are not born in a vacuum. We are born into a family and society. We owe society for our language and ability to read and write. There are countless influences that have shaped our lives and mentality. Some of it have been by people that had our interests at heart, rather than their own. Then you are constructing an argument against the second statement. The first thing you need to determine is if you mean "owe" in the sense we have discussed. I think I noted in the OP that we use "owe" in two ways. We "owe" our existence to the causes of it in the sense of cause and effect. But that is not the same as saying that we carry a debt to be repaid. Are you in fact asserting the later? Or simply the former? If the fomer, I agree but it does not contradict the second statement. If the later then you need to explain what the terms of the debt are, what are the terms of service, how is the debt enforced, etc. Lacking evidence of these, what do you have in support of your argument?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/07/08 - 09:48 PM:	#31
BTW, if you want to see how these principles are being applied, see "Covenant Theory": http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/covena... I think that will answer some of your questions about why I chose these, how they are relevant to the overall enterprise.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/08/08 - 05:14 AM:	#32
cortes wrote: They are saying that they are owed these rights. From where is irrelevant. They are making claims of value by virtue of their mere existence. You are probably correct in saying that most people are just making a claim that they are owed these rights irregardless of the source of those rights. They are making a value judgement without defining the source of such a value. If we assume that we are talking about the 'average person', then your statement is probably correct the majority of the time. However, your statement is not correct all of the time and therefore cannot be termed absolute. cortes wrote: I find it most ironic that you should complain about the implied value judgements at the same time you claim different value judgements. The problem with your principles rests on their vagueness and their underlying assumptions. Whether we realize it or not, we all make value judgements, and there is no pure philosophical axiom that does not involve a value judgement. If you present a philosphical disertation, much as you have done, then you need to present more arguments to back up your principles. I still say that your principles read much like you are starting in the middle of a dissertation, rather than at the beginning, because there are too many assumptions built into those principles. You need to offer more proof. cortes wrote: If so then you should be able to construct a refutation of them. Instead you seem intent on quibling about word choice. Trying to refute your principles is much like trying to refute the statement that the 'sky was cloudy'. This statement does not give the location of the observer nor the date and time. There is no way to refute the statement because it lacks a complete definition. This is precisely what is wrong with your blanket principles. They lack a complete definition. You present them and then try to argue their merit. But, they are so vague that no one can argue pro or con. cortes wrote: If the later then you need to explain what the terms of the debt are, what are the terms of service, how is the debt enforced, etc. Lacking evidence of these, what do you have in support of your argument? Your questions to me are applicable to your second principle. You have not defined to whom a debt is not owed, the terms of not owing, and any evidence as to why there could be an owing or not owing. You have never presented an object of the owing or not owing. You simple present a verb without a noun. This is why it makes no sense. Sorry, but I have only had time to briefly scan the covenant theory. But, I can see that there is plenty there for me to present counter arguments.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/08/08 - 06:30 AM:	#33
optrader wrote: You are probably correct in saying that most people are just making a claim that they are owed these rights irregardless of the source of those rights. They are making a value judgement without defining the source of such a value. If we assume that we are talking about the 'average person', then your statement is probably correct the majority of the time. However, your statement is not correct all of the time and therefore cannot be termed absolute. I assume by "your statement" you mean my statement that people think they are owed rights. You are correct, it is not true of everyone. Remember, the first principle is a general negative. The fact that not everyone needs to be reminded that the "universe" or "society" doesn't own them anything for their mere existence does not invalidate the principle. optrader wrote: The problem with your principles rests on their vagueness and their underlying assumptions. Whether we realize it or not, we all make value judgements, and there is no pure philosophical axiom that does not involve a value judgement. If you present a philosphical disertation, much as you have done, then you need to present more arguments to back up your principles. I still say that your principles read much like you are starting in the middle of a dissertation, rather than at the beginning, because there are too many assumptions built into those principles. You need to offer more proof. They are only vague if they fail to communicate. They only need more proof if they are disputed (I'm still not sure if you're disputing my second principle). While I could certainly make them more precise or provide further proof for them, your complaints so far have been largely tangential. If you are not arguing that you deserved your existence then you are not arguing against the first principle. The two principles are nice, simple, general negatives. The first is easily established by understanding "deserve" (which, while it could be more precisely defined, has not been misunderstood by anyone) and the simple fact that we can't do anything before we are born to deserve being born. The second principle is almost as easily established by the absence of pre-birth agreement to conditions of birth. My argument for the second (which I admit is an axiom and not a proven point) is, similar to the first, that you could not have agreed to any conditions before you were born, the usual way we understand the incursion of a debt. Very simple. optrader wrote: Trying to refute your principles is much like trying to refute the statement that the 'sky was cloudy'. This statement does not give the location of the observer nor the date and time. There is no way to refute the statement because it lacks a complete definition. This is precisely what is wrong with your blanket principles. They lack a complete definition. You present them and then try to argue their merit. But, they are so vague that no one can argue pro or con. I have a hard time believing that. Think about your own life. Think about the concept of "deserve". What did you do to deserve being born? I do suspect that once we dive into "Covenenant Theory" we will better discover how the principles need further clarification. optrader wrote: Your questions to me are applicable to your second principle. You have not defined to whom a debt is not owed, the terms of not owing, and any evidence as to why there could be an owing or not owing. You have never presented an object of the owing or not owing. You simple present a verb without a noun. This is why it makes no sense. But, again, it is a general negative statement. If I say "you have no debt" all you have to refute me is to show me that you owe somebody, anybody. Show me a the debt on any terms. Explain how it is possible for you to have accepted any kind of obligation to anyone before you were born? Complaining that I have not defined to whom a debt is not owed is like complaining that I have not told you the name of the elephant that is not in my room. You and coolazice complained about my use of the term "gift" but we are looking at reality and seeking metaphors to describe it. Is our existence like a debt or like a gift? I am promoting the gift metaphor, our existence is both undeserved and unencumbered by debt, and I have given my reasons for doing so: we can't have done anything before we were born to deserve our existence nor could we have agreed to any conditions to our existence. I think you are being tripped up not by the vagueness of the two principles but by their broad simplicity.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 200

Posted 05/09/08 - 07:58 PM:	#34
cortes wrote: It is true that "gift" is a value judgement but is it unnecessary? You anticipate the most obvious argument in support of the value of life but your argument is unpersuasive. It is true that not everyone who chooses to reject the gift succeeds in their attempt but as anyone familiar with suicide will tell you, those who fail are usually not serious about doing the deed but are instead ususally using the suicide attempt as a cry for help. Suicide is just too easy. Perhaps a more important point is that 'gift' is indicative of your psychological state, and cannot logically follow from the premises. I am quite sure that many people do not see life as a gift. These people would not (and should not) be persuaded by any argument which tries to 'logically' show how life is a gift. This just comes down to personal feelings. Besides that, I am a bit confused about your argument. If life is a gift, wouldn't we in fact be indebted to our parents (and society) for granting us this undeserved gift? This is after all, anthropologically speaking, the meaning of gift-giving in human society - you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. One would infer from your term 'gift' a contradiction to your second premise. cortes wrote: Would you be willing to accapt that we "ought' to opt for truth and/or happiness? If not, you're using "ought" in a way that I am unfamiliar with. (Note that the entire point of these two principles is to refute any claims of moral obligation.) This depends. As a general rule, I believe we ought to opt for both truth and happiness, but not at the expense of other, perhaps greater values. For instance, I would rather be unhappy and creative than a happy non-creative person. Besides, truth and happiness are quite different things, and can oppose each other in many cases.
_____________________ One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:31 PM:	#35
coolazice wrote: Perhaps a more important point is that 'gift' is indicative of your psychological state, and cannot logically follow from the premises. I am quite sure that many people do not see life as a gift. These people would not (and should not) be persuaded by any argument which tries to 'logically' show how life is a gift. This just comes down to personal feelings. This is a very confused set of sentences. I will return to it at the end. coolazice wrote: Besides that, I am a bit confused about your argument. If life is a gift, wouldn't we in fact be indebted to our parents (and society) for granting us this undeserved gift? This is after all, anthropologically speaking, the meaning of gift-giving in human society - you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. One would infer from your term 'gift' a contradiction to your second premise. I think this is a better criticism of the "gift" metaphor because, of course, I am suggesting no such thing. Quite the contrary. And perhaps this is why optrader was so obsessed with trying to determine who the gift giver was. The idea that I meant to convey by the "gift" metaphor is that existence is unearned and undeserved (like a gift) and not deserved or earned (like a college degree or a salary). Gift is the best term I have found for this but if you have another I am listening. coolazice wrote: This depends. As a general rule, I believe we ought to opt for both truth and happiness, but not at the expense of other, perhaps greater values. For instance, I would rather be unhappy and creative than a happy non-creative person. Besides, truth and happiness are quite different things, and can oppose each other in many cases. Yes, there are a bundle of these things and we often make tradeoffs between them. However, I think it is safe in general to say that, all things being equal, we prefer more truth to less, more happiness to less, more success to less, etc. We can at least speak of Pareto optimality with respec to these things. coolazice wrote: Perhaps a more important point is that 'gift' is indicative of your psychological state, and cannot logically follow from the premises. I am quite sure that many people do not see life as a gift. These people would not (and should not) be persuaded by any argument which tries to 'logically' show how life is a gift. This just comes down to personal feelings. I find this to be a very perplexing claim. I'm tempted to dismiss it as devil's advocacy, I enjoy much the same in other contexts. The question you are raising here is whether one ought to value existence. I argued previously that we can infer that people do value existence by their existence, that is to say by the fact that they have not committed suicide. I find that to be a compelling argument and I am thus suspicious that you do not. Now I certainly agree with you that there are plenty of people who value their existence less than they should. I am tempted, for the most part, to step over those poor souls on my way through life, perhaps tossing them a quarter. Whenever I encounter someone who thinks that life is not worth living and that they should end their life, I ask them if I can have their life; come be a slave to me and I will give your life purpose and meaning. Then there are those who are of a more nihilistic bent, who are inclined to destroy out of frustration with their disappointment with existence. For such as those I keep a weapon handy. But if I were to think of one of my children in such a situation I would be inclined to drive home exactly the points that I have been making: that life is an opportunity to be seized. This is as certain a fact as that 1+1=2 and so it is only a matter of studying a paricular situation to find the right resolution. If your "feelings" are contrary it is because you have not set your feelings correctly. But fundamentally, putting your mind right from the start is the best way to avoid getting into such a rut. For example, there was a recent study that suggested that "conservatives" are happier than "liberals" and the explanation given was that "liberals" are stressed out by the inequities of life while "conservatives" rationalied such injustice. The authors were plainly sympathetic to the unhappy "liberals" but the conclusion that I would draw is that, of course, you can make yourself unhappy if you demand life to be other than it is. I'm sure that the flat-earthers are an unhappy lot too. In fact, this is exactly the sort of entitlement mentality that the first principle is designed to prevent. I can almost guarantee you those who, as you described earlier, regard life as a "nightmare", are expecting it to be other than it is.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/11/08 - 04:29 PM:	#36
cortes wrote: The idea that I meant to convey by the "gift" metaphor is that existence is unearned and undeserved (like a gift) and not deserved or earned (like a college degree or a salary). Gift is the best term I have found for this but if you have another I am listening. You can say that life is deserved or undeserved. Either way, it is your 'opinion', your judgement. If it is your opinion that life is a gift, then you should be able to make arguments to 'prove' it. However, you want us to accept your statement as it is. But, there is no 'context' to your statement. A person dying of cancer might not agree that their life is a 'gift', but a painful horror. Some peoples lives are so miserable that they may believe life to be a 'burden'. cortes wrote: life is an opportunity to be seized. This is as certain a fact as that 1+1=2 and so it is only a matter of studying a paricular situation to find the right resolution. If your "feelings" are contrary it is because you have not set your feelings correctly. Again, life being an opportunity is your opinion. You provide no context for your opinion.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/11/08 - 04:45 PM:	#37
optrader wrote: You can say that life is deserved or undeserved. Either way, it is your 'opinion', your judgement. If it is your opinion that life is a gift, then you should be able to make arguments to 'prove' it. However, you want us to accept your statement as it is. But, there is no 'context' to your statement. A person dying of cancer might not agree that their life is a 'gift', but a painful horror. Some peoples lives are so miserable that they may believe life to be a 'burden'. The fact that someone might believe, even say, that 1+1=3 does not constitute an argument. I have offered evidence that people value their lives, even those who are supposedly miserable or terminally ill. The mere fact of existence (as opposed to nonexistence through suicde) is evidence for my claim. Insofar as life may be a burden for some, it is one easily shed.I have also offered evidence for my claim that life is undeserved by pointing to the simple fact tht you did not exist prior to your birth. I am curious why you are so wedded to your belief to the contrary. What is your position and what evidence do you offer for your it? Closing your eyes to such simply and easily observed facts is not an argument.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/12/08 - 06:38 PM:	#38
cortes wrote: I have offered evidence that people value their lives. Most people do value their lives, but not everyone. cortes wrote: The mere fact of existence (as opposed to nonexistence through suicde) is evidence for my claim. This is not absolutely true. A lot of people feel their lives are worthless and don't commit suicide because they are afraid of dying or some judgement after death. cortes wrote: I have also offered evidence for my claim that life is undeserved by pointing to the simple fact tht you did not exist prior to your birth. This is a ridiculous statement. Life for any person is neither deserved or undeserved. Since there is no deserving or undeserving then birth does not change your argument. Again, I must point out to you that if life is a gift and we are deserving of it, then something must give the gift. You have not defined who or whom gives this gift. You cannot make a blanket statement that defies a logical sentence structure. cortes wrote: I am curious why you are so wedded to your belief to the contrary. What is your position and what evidence do you offer for your it? You present a 'stupid' argument and then you expect me to argue 'for' or 'against' it. It would be like arguing against the sky is red. Ok...what time of day is it? Is it cloudy? Is the sun setting? This is what you are doing. You are presenting a statement much like saying the sky is red and they you expect me to make arguments against it. As far as my position, I don't think we are deserving or non-deserving. I perceive the universe and man as existing. There is no 'giver' of life, therefore no 'gift' of life. We and the universe simply exist. There is no 'creator'. What is, simply is. We exist and there is an existence independent of whether I exist or not. Living things are struggling for 'more life'. They are not content with merely existing. Just as us humans are never satisfied. We always desire more. This is the way of all living things. This is why animals and people will fight each other to the death. They don't just want life, but more. cortes wrote: Closing your eyes to such simply and easily observed facts is not an argument. Sorry, I don't believe I am closing my eyes to your argument. Your argument appears to be quite apparent to you, but I find it illogical. By the way, I just received the book 'The Art of Living Consciously' by Nathanel Branden, and I have just started reading it.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:10 PM:	#39
optrader wrote: Most people do value their lives, but not everyone. So let's set aside those who value their lives and concentrate on those who don't. optrader wrote: cortes wrote: The mere fact of existence (as opposed to nonexistence through suicde) is evidence for my claim. This is not absolutely true. A lot of people feel their lives are worthless and don't commit suicide because they are afraid of dying or some judgement after death. I think we are running into a rather simple issue of meanings here. Up to now we've used "life" and "existence" interchangably. If we are to take account of these individuals then we need to distinguish the two. People in this case do not value their lives but they still value their souls and believe that suicide will endanger their souls. Such people still value their existence but necessarily their lives. In any case, these people are a very small minority. optrader wrote: Again, I must point out to you that if life is a gift and we are deserving of it, then something must give the gift. You have not defined who or whom gives this gift. You cannot make a blanket statement that defies a logical sentence structure. But my claim does not rest on identifying any giver or cause because deserve is a quality associated with the receiver, not the giver. optrader wrote: You present a 'stupid' argument and then you expect me to argue 'for' or 'against' it. It would be like arguing against the sky is red. Ok...what time of day is it? Is it cloudy? Is the sun setting? This is what you are doing. You are presenting a statement much like saying the sky is red and they you expect me to make arguments against it. If you said to me that the sky was red I would certainly have no difficulty arguing against it. (We might first ascertain that we are sharing the same meaning of "sky" and "red" but I don't get the impression that we are arguing about the meaning of "deserve" or "existence".) If there are bounding particulars that might lead us to different conclusions we could identify those through a discussion of the contingencies, localities, etc. To be precise, what do you observe and what do I observe and what might account for the different observations. But chasing red herrings like "who is the giver" when "deserve" is a property of the receiver only distracts. optrader wrote: As far as my position, I don't think we are deserving or non-deserving. I perceive the universe and man as existing. There is no 'giver' of life, therefore no 'gift' of life. "Gift" is a metaphor designed to communicate a concept. You are, in effect, complaining that it cannot be a gift because it does not have a ribbon on top. The more precise claim that I made was that "we do not deserve to exist" or even more precisely, "we could not have done anything to deserve our existence." By any concept of "deserve" that requires doing something our existence is undeserved. optrader wrote: Living things are struggling for 'more life'. They are not content with merely existing. Just as us humans are never satisfied. We always desire more. This is the way of all living things. This is why animals and people will fight each other to the death. They don't just want life, but more. I don't think we are in disagreement here. In any case, maybe we should just agree to disagree on this point for the time being and explore Covenant Theory. I would be curios to find out where you disagree there, whether you have corresponding objections to my arguments there or whether we have simply argued here about meaningless differences. (It is certainly possible that you're concept of "not deserved nor undeserved" is equivalent to my concept of "undeserved".) Depending on where we disagree on Covenant Theory we might then return here with a more substantive basis for discussion. optrader wrote: By the way, I just received the book 'The Art of Living Consciously' by Nathanel Branden, and I have just started reading it. I will be curios to know if you find it as valuable a complement to Rand's works as I did.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 05/13/08 - 02:16 AM: Subject: back on the glue?	#40
This is all rather borish, and I think you have said the same thing in another post. We exist, so what? To say " I do deserve to exist" or the converse is to really say nothing - Existence is not predicated on purpose. <- - - That being a fact, what does that say about your philosophy? ....Let me spell it again... D ...E...T...E...R...M...I...N...I...S...M...
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/13/08 - 07:01 AM:	#41
litkey wrote: This is all rather borish, and I think you have said the same thing in another post. We exist, so what? To say " I do deserve to exist" or the converse is to really say nothing - Existence is not predicated on purpose. <- - - That being a fact, what does that say about your philosophy? ....Let me spell it again... D ...E...T...E...R...M...I...N...I...S...M... Ah, but I am not saying merely that we exist. I am saying we do not deserve to exist and that, therfore, our existence depends on the universe being unfair. What that implies is that those like Rawls who organize their philosophy around making the world more just are enemies of human existence. Beyond that, I explore the implications of these points in "Covenant Theory". http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/covena... BTW, I decided to add a third point to my fundamental principles: 3) We are solely responsible for our lives. Even more than the second point, this is axiomatic though it is certainly consistent with the first two points and the nature of human existence. Few things better distinguish the successful from the unsuccessful as the willingness to take responsibility for one's life (as opposed to living life as a victim relying on Rawlsian justice).
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 05/13/08 - 08:12 AM:	#42
Cortes, cortes wrote: Ah, but I am not saying merely that we exist. I am saying we do not deserve to exist and that, therfore, our existence depends on the universe being unfair. At first glance your design seems to be the converse of Rawlsian theory; in so far as you agree that the world is neither "fair" nor "unfair" - Rawls would accept this, although brings human thought into the question: Fairness. "fairness" comes from us, or what we think "fairness" is - you seem to be creating a wide gulf out of this dichotomy- "the universe" and "human thought" - and I don't really know what to think about that at this stage. What that implies is that those like Rawls who organize their philosophy around making the world more just are enemies of human existence. Ok, we could perhaps stretch the above to apply to some socialist thinkers, and communists (although, be aware communism is close to anarchism: less/no government...freedom/Liberty) but not to Rawls. An enemy to human existence is someone who is holding a gun to your head. 3) We are solely responsible for our lives. what does this mean? What does it really* mean? - If a person is shot in Baghdad, shipped back to the states, given no welfare, and told to "hit the street!" - Is this person responsible for their life? - A mother is ditched by husband, with children, he has all the money, and she is left in the shit - Is she responsible? -A child is brought up by heroin dealers and drunks - is (s)he responsible? - A person has a wealthy family, status, is born in a prosperous town, and has benefits that many do not have - is this person responsible? The question of "responsibility" is a tricky one to say the least. And I also think a Dangerous concept. (Think Ayn Rand). Why so Mike?? Well, I have met some yuppies (fortunately not too many) in California and there is a prevelent belief that people are lazy, no good, and that people should take "responsibility" for their lives- often there is anger/hatred at those who aren't wealthy and yuppies like them - but they forget one simple thing- the contingency factor: wealth, family status, nationality.......and birth.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/13/08 - 08:55 AM:	#43
litkey wrote: At first glance your design seems to be the converse of Rawlsian theory; in so far as you agree that the world is neither "fair" nor "unfair" - Rawls would accept this, although brings human thought into the question: Fairness. "fairness" comes from us, or what we think "fairness" is - you seem to be creating a wide gulf out of this dichotomy- "the universe" and "human thought" - and I don't really know what to think about that at this stage. . Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. Incidently, we see the same sort of thing happening at the national level with Israel. There are many people who question Israel's right to exist and demand that Israel justify its existence. It is not an academic question. And there is but one proper answer. (You seem to have changed your position quite a bit since our previous discussions. If, for example, "fairness comes from us" then isn't my definition of fairness (a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god) as good as any (certainly better than Rawls fantasy)?) litkey wrote: Ok, we could perhaps stretch the above to apply to some socialist thinkers, and communists (although, be aware communism is close to anarchism: less/no government...freedom/Liberty) but not to Rawls. An enemy to human existence is someone who is holding a gun to your head. Which of course depends on what is done with the Rawlsian concept of justice. As I noted very early on in my previous discussion, we are fortunate that no politician has embraced the concept of Rawsian justice but given the Swiss implementation of vegetable rights nothing would surprise me anymore. litkey wrote: what does this mean? What does it really* mean? - If a person is shot in Baghdad, shipped back to the states, given no welfare, and told to "hit the street!" - Is this person responsible for their life? - A mother is ditched by husband, with children, he has all the money, and she is left in the shit - Is she responsible? -A child is brought up by heroin dealers and drunks - is (s)he responsible? - A person has a wealthy family, status, is born in a prosperous town, and has benefits that many do not have - is this person responsible? Yes on all counts. Irrespective of circumstances, a responsible person looks to themselves first to make changes in their life and to others only instrumentally. Think of it this way: if you have a problem to solve it would be really great if someone solved it for you. But relying on others to solve your problems is a ticket to failure. Taking responsibility is not a statement of past causation but of making choices toward future outcomes. It means not accepting determinism and fate but creating your own future.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/13/08 - 07:37 PM:	#44
cortes wrote: But my claim does not rest on identifying any giver or cause because deserve is a quality associated with the receiver, not the giver. You are talking about a 'receiver'. If there is a 'receiver', there has to be a 'giver'. The problem I have with your idea is that you have not informed me as to whom this 'giver' is. That is what makes your statement, and this whole concept of life as a gift, to be illogical. You want everyone to accept the idea that life is a 'gift'. But, who is giving this 'gift'? Who is giving life? Your entire premises are illogical. If you say that we are just born and life and let that be it, then you don't have to introduce a 'giver' or a 'receiver'. But, you are trying to call being born and living a 'gift'. But, this is a completely illogical statement. A person or an animal has no control over being born. They are simply alive. No one gave them that life. cortes wrote: But chasing red herrings like "who is the giver" when "deserve" is a property of the receiver only distracts. Deserve may be a property of a 'receiver', but man and living things are not 'receivers'! cortes wrote: "Gift" is a metaphor designed to communicate a concept. You are, in effect, complaining that it cannot be a gift because it does not have a ribbon on top. The more precise claim that I made was that "we do not deserve to exist" or even more precisely, "we could not have done anything to deserve our existence." By any concept of "deserve" that requires doing something our existence is undeserved. Doing something or not doing something is completely irrelevant to existence. We simply exist. You have jumped to a conclusion that 'we do not deserve to exist'. But, that is a leap in judgement by you and you are judging life and existence. But, who made you the judge of all? You want us all to believe this same judgement. But, such a judgement is a personal matter, and few people will agree on such matters. cortes wrote: In any case, maybe we should just agree to disagree on this point for the time being and explore Covenant Theory. I have already read your Covenant Theory. But, I cannot get into it because I cannot get past the premises on which it is based. You will have to build a better case for your premises. As they stand now, they are illogical. cortes wrote: Ah, but I am not saying merely that we exist. I am saying we do not deserve to exist and that, therefore, our existence depends on the universe being unfair. But, where do you arrive at the idea that the universe is 'unfair'? If you believe this, then you believe the universe is some kind of 'entity' that can think and make judgements. But, if the universe is merely a mechanism, something much like a machine, then it does not think nor make judgements and you cannot say it is fair or unfair. cortes wrote: 3) We are solely responsible for our lives. I agree with litkey that this statement is not completely true. There are many circumstances where a person has little control over his life and in those situations it is difficult to place the sole responsibility on them. cortes wrote: Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. First, I would not reply to the individual, except to tell him to 'get lost'. Second, I don't owe and explanation to anyone for my existence. Third, no one can tell me that I deserve or don't deserve to exist. In a society, each person has the 'right' to exist, until they kill someone else, and then society may take that right from them. As far as the universe is concerned, there is no 'right' to exist. We simply exist. cortes wrote: Incidentally, we see the same sort of thing happening at the national level with Israel. There are many people who question Israel's right to exist and demand that Israel justify its existence. It is not an academic question. Israel is a sovereign country and it does not have to justify its existence to any other country. The universe is not going to cry out for Israel to justify its existence. It is on the the countries and people that don't like Israel and its people.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/13/08 - 10:02 PM:	#45
optrader wrote: You are talking about a 'receiver'. If there is a 'receiver', there has to be a 'giver'. The problem I have with your idea is that you have not informed me as to whom this 'giver' is. Because the argument does not depend on identifying the giver. Let it be nature, God, or "society" as you prefer. optrader wrote: Deserve may be a property of a 'receiver', but man and living things are not 'receivers'! That makes no sense. I receive things all the time. optrader wrote: Doing something or not doing something is completely irrelevant to existence. We simply exist. You have jumped to a conclusion that 'we do not deserve to exist'. But, that is a leap in judgement by you and you are judging life and existence. But, who made you the judge of all? You want us all to believe this same judgement. But, such a judgement is a personal matter, and few people will agree on such matters. It's a judgement formed from the facts. optrader wrote: But, where do you arrive at the idea that the universe is 'unfair'? If you believe this, then you believe the universe is some kind of 'entity' that can think and make judgements. But, if the universe is merely a mechanism, something much like a machine, then it does not think nor make judgements and you cannot say it is fair or unfair. The phrase "life is unfair" simply means that people don't (necessarily) get what they deserve. optrader wrote: I agree with litkey that this statement is not completely true. There are many circumstances where a person has little control over his life and in those situations it is difficult to place the sole responsibility on them. Keep in mind that this third point is, like the second, an axiom. It is a position taken for a purpose though it is certainly not inconsistent with any facts. (Note my explanation that it is oriented on choice and future goals, not an explanation of past events and causations.) optrader wrote: cortes wrote: Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. First, I would not reply to the individual, except to tell him to 'get lost'. Second, I don't owe and explanation to anyone for my existence. That is, in fact, the correct answer. (I was hoping to make litkey rub his brain cells together.) optrader wrote: Israel is a sovereign country and it does not have to justify its existence to any other country. The universe is not going to cry out for Israel to justify its existence. It is on the the countries and people that don't like Israel and its people. Ditto.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/14/08 - 04:47 PM:	#46
cortes wrote: "Because the argument does not depend on identifying the giver." Let it be nature, God, or "society" as you prefer. Ahhhh...but you must identify the giver! Your postulate that we do not deserve to exist requires you to identify the source of our existence. Can you say that we 'owe' our existence to nature? What about to God? What about to society? I can easily refute your claim. I don't 'owe' my existence to nature. I was simply born; I had no control over it. I cannot say that I owe my existence to God because I cannot prove there is a God. I cannot say that I owe my existence to society, because I was just born into society. I had no say in the fact of my existence. To make your claims, you will have to identify this giver. cortes wrote: That makes no sense. I receive things all the time. If you receive things all the time, then 'what' or 'whom' gives you those things? You cannot just receive things without a giving source. You might make a blanket statement that says that 'life gives me all sorts of gifts'. But, this is not a statement that can stand up to scrutiny. First, there is no thing or entity called life that is giving you anything. You are really saying that you have an emotion of joy most of the time. cortes wrote: The phrase "life is unfair" simply means that people don't (necessarily) get what they deserve. Here you go again! Where do you get the idea that people 'deserve' things? To whom should they be receiving things? Are you saying that 'nature' is unfair and people deserve more from nature? If so, then you must think nature is a conscious thinking being and makes judgements. If life is unfair, then to what are you making your comparison? Such a statement must invoke a comparison. Then, you will have to invoke a creator of life so that you can tell this creator that his creation is not fair as compared to other life elsewhere in the universe. cortes wrote: Keep in mind that this third point is, like the second, an axiom. It is a position taken for a purpose though it is certainly not inconsistent with any facts. (Note my explanation that it is oriented on choice and future goals, not an explanation of past events and causations.) I believe your third axiom is incomplete. You will have to provide a context for it, because there are situations in life where a person is not solely responsible for their lives. Victor Frankl was in Auschwitz. He had no control over what happened to him. He was completely controlled by others. We seem to agree that a person or a country does not have to justify their existence to anyone. If you will note, I did not just say that a person does not have to justify their existence. I said that a person does not have to justify their existence to anyone else. In other words, I identified both entities in my statement. The problem that arises with your axioms is that you do not identify the two entities to whom you are speaking. Just because people say that 'life is unfair', does not mean that you can take this a philosophical axiom, because the statement is incomplete and vague. The statement implies that life is a 'thing' and that this thing is unfair to them. It makes the assumption that this thing life is fair to some other people, but is not fair to them. In other words, they compare their life to others lives and they don't like the comparison. They may see other people with riches and they are poor. Maybe they were born with physical disabilities. In any event, they are acting like life is a 'thing' or a kind of 'entity' that 'gives'. But, life is like existence, it just 'is'. It is not conscious, not creating, not thinking, nor judging. Now, you could begin your axiom by saying that some people look around and compare their life with others and they are not satisfied and they desire to own things like other people. You could say that they 'feel' they 'deserve' to have the things like other people have. You could say they 'feel' they 'deserve' to be happy. But, you still have to explain who it is that 'owes' them something. If they 'deserve', then they are essentially saying that something 'owes' them. You could say that these people feel that 'society' 'owes' them 'things'. Does this make sense? Are we beginning to get on the same page?

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/14/08 - 05:53 PM:	#47
optrader wrote: Ahhhh...but you must identify the giver! Your postulate that we do not deserve to exist requires you to identify the source of our existence. Why is that? You have repeatedly claimed this without justifying it. My claim is that existence is undeserved. That claim does not depend on the source of existence anymore than it depends on the color of the sky. optrader wrote: Can you say that we 'owe' our existence to nature? What about to God? What about to society? I can easily refute your claim. I don't 'owe' my existence to nature. I was simply born; I had no control over it. I cannot say that I owe my existence to God because I cannot prove there is a God. I cannot say that I owe my existence to society, because I was just born into society. I had no say in the fact of my existence. To make your claims, you will have to identify this giver. The fact that you had no control over your birth is the sufficient fact. We could examine each and every proposed source of your existence and it would not alter that fact. In logic we would say For all (X) where X is the source of your existence. Since your lack of control is not a function of the source of your existence it does not depend on it and therefore the soruce can be ignored. optrader wrote: If you receive things all the time, then 'what' or 'whom' gives you those things? You cannot just receive things without a giving source. Sure I can. I could receive a package in the mail with no return address. optrader wrote: Here you go again! Where do you get the idea that people 'deserve' things? Well, I am refuting that claim but the claim is made as we discussed before. optrader wrote: I believe your third axiom is incomplete. You will have to provide a context for it, because there are situations in life where a person is not solely responsible for their lives. Victor Frankl was in Auschwitz. He had no control over what happened to him. He was completely controlled by others. Actually, there are several Holocaust survivors who claim that one of the determinants of who lived and who died was their attitude toward their situation and what they did to survive as opposed to giving up in despair. Even in a death camp, the principle applies. optrader wrote: Just because people say that 'life is unfair', does not mean that you can take this a philosophical axiom, because the statement is incomplete and vague. I'm only mentioning the phrase to point out that people understand the concept, however incomplete and vague it may be. There is always room for more precision but not ever ambiguity is worth resolving. optrader wrote: But, life is like existence, it just 'is'. It is not conscious, not creating, not thinking, nor judging. If I observed that two trees are not equal in height I would not be implying any cosiousness to them or to the forest. The phrase "life is not fair" is, in the simplest form, such an observation. Now some like me use the phrase to mean, "forget about it", while others use it as a basis of complaint. optrader wrote: You could say that they 'feel' they 'deserve' to have the things like other people have. You could say they 'feel' they 'deserve' to be happy. But, you still have to explain who it is that 'owes' them something. If they 'deserve', then they are essentially saying that something 'owes' them. You could say that these people feel that 'society' 'owes' them 'things'. Does this make sense? Are we beginning to get on the same page? And, in fact, this is what people who take the opposite position tend to do. Most commonly, such people tend to identify "society" as the entity that owes them, and through it, the productive. But since I am refuting such claims, I don't see any point in identifying the sources. I am disclaiming them all categorically.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 05/15/08 - 03:36 AM:	#48
cortes wrote: Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. You are taking it away from the meta-ethical front, and focusing on a "real world" situation - Think of Napoleon on the battle field, he watches his troops, and thinks in terms of "who -deserves-what?" - Meritocracy is a fact, and a fact in the real world. you should think in terms of existence neither predicating fairness or unfairness - these are "human" concepts (but, this does not mean they are "seperate" from the "universe" -- Incidentally, this is where we differ greatly: I do not want to seperate myself/my concepts from the "Universe", as I view myself as part of the whole) and they are concepts that are used often in our waking world. Incidently, we see the same sort of thing happening at the national level with Israel. There are many people who question Israel's right to exist and demand that Israel justify its existence. It is not an academic question. Well, this could be argued on the meta-physical ground "god given land." etc., or someone might say "we fought for this land." or someone might say "we suffered greatly." Arguments can be made, but they may not rest on the same land. (You seem to have changed your position quite a bit since our previous discussions. If, for example, "fairness comes from us" then isn't my definition of fairness (a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god) as good as any (certainly better than Rawls fantasy)?) Even you yourself would find your neighbour ridiculous if he came over and said "I am a living God." Which of course depends on what is done with the Rawlsian concept of justice. As I noted very early on in my previous discussion, we are fortunate that no politician has embraced the concept of Rawsian justice but given the Swiss implementation of vegetable rights nothing would surprise me anymore. Look, I never descended into Rawlsian economic philosophy, well, not in great depth - what I did touch upon was his "Contingency theory" - we are all born into Circumstace...WE DO NOT MAKE THE CIRCUMSTANCE. Do you understand the contingency point? Yes on all counts. Irrespective of circumstances, a responsible person looks to themselves first to make changes in their life and to others only instrumentally. Think of it this way: if you have a problem to solve it would be really great if someone solved it for you. But relying on others to solve your problems is a ticket to failure. Taking responsibility is not a statement of past causation but of making choices toward future outcomes. It means not accepting determinism and fate but creating your own future. Well, here is where we disagree. You fail to see "responsibility" as a DANGEROUS concept. It implies that a person who is brought up with abusive alcoholic parents are the sole cause of their present circumstance(s). Quite frankly I see you as being utterly wrong here, and stubborn too - on not even entertaining the concept of "determinism" /// "Contingency."
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/15/08 - 07:10 AM:	#49
litkey wrote: You are taking it away from the meta-ethical front, and focusing on a "real world" situation - Think of Napoleon on the battle field, he watches his troops, and thinks in terms of "who -deserves-what?" - Meritocracy is a fact, and a fact in the real world. you should think in terms of existence neither predicating fairness or unfairness - these are "human" concepts (but, this does not mean they are "seperate" from the "universe" -- Incidentally, this is where we differ greatly: I do not want to seperate myself/my concepts from the "Universe", as I view myself as part of the whole) and they are concepts that are used often in our waking world. The purpose of the scenario was to illustrate the pointlessness of justifying existence. But as I pointed out before, it is a plain fact that there are many who believe, and you have made arguments yourself to the effect, that people deserve one thing or another by virtue of taking up space and sucking air. If you want to place the concept of fairness within a social context then that's really a question for the next part (Coveneant Theory). What you will find there is that social constructions must be constructed socially. Note, however, that at this point we are dealing with a human: the born individual. This individual is perfectly capable of demanding what's "due" him even if he doesn't know from whom to demand it. litkey wrote: Even you yourself would find your neighbour ridiculous if he came over and said "I am a living God." Well, of course, that's ridiculous. Only I am a living god. litkey wrote: Look, I never descended into Rawlsian economic philosophy, well, not in great depth - what I did touch upon was his "Contingency theory" - we are all born into Circumstace...WE DO NOT MAKE THE CIRCUMSTANCE. Do you understand the contingency point? That was never our disagreement. Our disagreement was over the contingent nature of the future and the supposed value of fairness. What I have shown here is that not merely is the world unfair, as Rawls et alia correctly say, but that our very existence is unfair, that we value our existence, and thus that there is value in unfairness. (I could argue further for unfairness in other ways but that is sufficient to make my point.) That's why we tell anyone asking us to justify our existence to fuck off. litkey wrote: Well, here is where we disagree. You fail to see "responsibility" as a DANGEROUS concept. It implies that a person who is brought up with abusive alcoholic parents are the sole cause of their present circumstance(s). Quite frankly I see you as being utterly wrong here, and stubborn too - on not even entertaining the concept of "determinism" /// "Contingency." No, I explicitly rejected this version of responsibility. I said before quite clearly that it was not about past causation but on chioces about future outcomes. It doesn't matter whether this person's present circumstances are caused by the alcoholic parents or whether those are just coincidental. In this context, what the third point means, is that there is no value in wallowing in self pity and victimhood. Taking responsibility means taking the present circumstances and making something of them without waiting for others to undo the effects of the alcoholic parents.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 05/15/08 - 08:24 AM:	#50
cortes wrote: But as I pointed out before, it is a plain fact that there are many who believe, and you have made arguments yourself to the effect, that people deserve one thing or another by virtue of taking up space and sucking air. If you want to place the concept of fairness within a social context then that's really a question for the next part (Coveneant Theory). What you will find there is that social constructions must be constructed socially. Note, however, that at this point we are dealing with a human: the born individual. This individual is perfectly capable of demanding what's "due" him even if he doesn't know from whom to demand it. You must have been drinking last night, your writing and ideas seem quite flaccid and pointless. Existence is not established on anything- and your ideas of "desert" was to bring it into the social world: recall the door step scenario? Irrespective of what I would say, each person will apply "desert" to their own hardwork, to their powers, some might even say they recall working hard to infiltrate the egg. Right? You are throwing the baby out of the basket - what about a person's context? Say the abused child that makes millions of pounds, i'm certain they will say they owe their money to hardwork, and infact, the person would probably point to the "terrible" background as the precursor to making a fortune. It's a truism that security and family wealth isn't good for the kids. Well, of course, that's ridiculous. Only I am a living god. Ridiculous! That was never our disagreement. Our disagreement was over the contingent nature of the future and the supposed value of fairness. Indeed it was, you think the idea of contingency is rubbish, and you place your chips down with hardwork, self-powers, and "responsibility" - you ignore the fact that people are born in ill-luck. (aside: this may not be a bad thing). Surely you cannot deny you were born into X situation? Some philosophers agree, that even the acknowledgement of this, ought to make us humble, and less prone to attack people on "hard times." but, the world takes all sorts I suppose. What I have shown here is that not merely is the world unfair, as Rawls et alia correctly say, but that our very existence is unfair, that we value our existence, and thus that there is value in unfairness. (I could argue further for unfairness in other ways but that is sufficient to make my point.) That's why we tell anyone asking us to justify our existence to fuck off. No,no, no...Rawls never said anything of the sort. He is looking at social, economical, and political issues and problems from the human vantage point - we have ideas on how best to design the community, and what he says is that, if we understand people are born rich, or people are born poor, then we should maybe do something to make it fair. Also- he tries to convey the dark side- If we do not understand the contingency, then others will understand it for us. No, I explicitly rejected this version of responsibility. I said before quite clearly that it was not about past causation but on chioces about future outcomes. It doesn't matter whether this person's present circumstances are caused by the alcoholic parents or whether those are just coincidental. In this context, what the third point means, is that there is no value in wallowing in self pity and victimhood. Taking responsibility means taking the present circumstances and making something of them without waiting for others to undo the effects of the alcoholic parents. This reads like a self-help book. have you written for that genre?? Sure, but someone's present circumstances are different from another person's. You might not agree with determinism (in this sense I am trying to convey) but, i'm sure you see it all around you.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.