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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/15/08 - 09:10 AM:	#51
litkey wrote: 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? There is nothing in my doorstep scenario to suggest that the person knocking on the door is of the same society as the person answering. The concept of "deserve" does not depend on a social context. It is quite meaningful (though wrong) to assert that one deserves to exist. It is simiarly meaningful to claim that one who lives alone on a desert island deserves the fruits of his own labors. These are meaningful claims regardless of whether or not they are correct. litkey wrote: 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? That's a new one on me but all it does is move existence back a step. Those who believe in reincarnation could push it back even further but unless you want to go the turtle on the back route, you're going to end up with a beginning somewhere. litkey wrote: 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. Look, there are all sorts of hard problems assigning cause and effect without experimentation. We don't need to get caught up in these to understand the meaningfulnss of the claim. litkey wrote: 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). Let me be more precise then. I do not dispute that some people are born with more than others. I am disputing a) that the starting point determines the ending point, and b) that there is any value in redistributing the goodies more fairly. If the universe were fair we would not exist. litkey wrote: 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. Right. That is the part we agree on. I would even agree that humility is a valuable virtue. Indeed, what could be more humbling than to acknowledge that we do not deserve to exist? litkey wrote: 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. It is certainly implicit and it was a question posed in those Rawslian threads, by you if I am not mistaken. litkey wrote: 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. It is, in fact, a concept taken from that genre. If I ever got around to publishing the Philosophy of Conquistadorianism it would probably be categorized as such. Now the third point is largely implied by the first two but I added it after reading The Success Principles by Jack Canfield. He rightly emphasizes the point as central and, agreeing with him, I didn't want to let be merely implied. Now there is an interesting question whether philosophy in general ought to be categorized as "self-help". Plato had some very definite ideas about how to life a good life.
_____________________ 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: 21
Total Posts: 207

Posted 05/16/08 - 07:11 PM:	#52
cortes wrote: 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. Of course, it is interesting that in your mind poor people (who you toss a quarter to) are somehow the same people who value existence less than they should. What you fail to appreciate is that all people, no matter where they are on the social scale, are already invested in a whole range of master-slave relationships - in other words, we are all slaves, even if only psychologically. This depression, general malaise and lack of value to life is caused by this feeling of slavery - I have no doubt that those people you ask for to be slaves tell you to piss off. Just because one does not value life does not imply they do not value their own free will and the positive things which can arise from this. Quite the contrary - they feel they cannot exercise this will, and that the life they lead (or the one that has been chosen for them to a large extent) does not bring out the best in them. Your philosophy of 'conquistadorianism' is in this respect as naive and insensitive as its historical namesakes - for it cheapens and denigrates human suffering. You would like to 'set' our feelings correctly, to be content with our lot, you would like us not to demand life to be other than it is. I will be perfectly blunt: I find this attitude disgusting, and it goes against every emotional fibre I have in my body. This 'philosophy' would result in a society where no major political change (which arises from discontent with the world) could occur, no works of artistic merit (which arise from human suffering) could be created, and no acts of human kindness (which arise from empathy with others' suffering) could be performed. This is the logical conclusion of your claims, this is the utpoia you would have us build. And yet you dislike those that would re-order human society!
_____________________ 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
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/16/08 - 07:48 PM:	#53
coolazice wrote: Of course, it is interesting that in your mind poor people (who you toss a quarter to) are somehow the same people who value existence less than they should. People who beg on the streets are not merely poor in cash. They are poor in spirit. (I'm speaking generally, there are some clever folk who manage to make quite a good living begging on the streets.) People who are merely poor, and I have seen very many of these, work hard to improve their lives and, in particular, the lives of their children. You don't find them begging on the street. coolazice wrote: What you fail to appreciate is that all people, no matter where they are on the social scale, are already invested in a whole range of master-slave relationships - in other words, we are all slaves, even if only psychologically. This depression, general malaise and lack of value to life is caused by this feeling of slavery - I have no doubt that those people you ask for to be slaves tell you to piss off. Just because one does not value life does not imply they do not value their own free will and the positive things which can arise from this. Quite the contrary - they feel they cannot exercise this will, and that the life they lead (or the one that has been chosen for them to a large extent) does not bring out the best in them. It is entirely possible for a man to die of thirst at a well because he does not believe he can draw water from it. Now certainly there are individuals who are mentally incompetent and they are a category of their own (and many who live on the streets are in this category). But by and large, most people have at least a basic understanding of the opportunities of life and thus value their lives. The idea that there is some significant number of people out there who "cannot exercise this will" is simply preposterous. I have never met so many people who believe in fatalistic determinism as in these philosophy forums. In the real world, you just don't see encounter that belief. coolazice wrote: Your philosophy of 'conquistadorianism' is in this respect as naive and insensitive as its historical namesakes - for it cheapens and denigrates human suffering. You would like to 'set' our feelings correctly, to be content with our lot, you would like us not to demand life to be other than it is. I will be perfectly blunt: I find this attitude disgusting, and it goes against every emotional fibre I have in my body. This 'philosophy' would result in a society where no major political change (which arises from discontent with the world) could occur, no works of artistic merit (which arise from human suffering) could be created, and no acts of human kindness (which arise from empathy with others' suffering) could be performed. This is the logical conclusion of your claims, this is the utpoia you would have us build. And yet you dislike those that would re-order human society! Given your dark view of human existence, I am not the least bit offended that you are "disgusted" with my philosophy. You seem determined to wallow in your suffering and to rationalize such behavior and to pretend it is common. Fortunately, it is not. While I am happy to plead guilty to being an opportunist extremist, the people I encounter in life are far closer to my own views than to the dark picture you have presented. As to the claim that opportunists do not create or act with kindness, this is refuted by all the evidence. Yes, the tormented artists often create great works of art but most of civilization is built by those with far more positive attitudes than you have described. Inded, research shows that it is the happy, well adjusted individual who is most inclined toward charity.
_____________________ 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: 21
Total Posts: 207

Posted 05/17/08 - 02:43 AM:	#54
cortes wrote: It is entirely possible for a man to die of thirst at a well because he does not believe he can draw water from it. Now certainly there are individuals who are mentally incompetent and they are a category of their own (and many who live on the streets are in this category). But by and large, most people have at least a basic understanding of the opportunities of life and thus value their lives. The idea that there is some significant number of people out there who "cannot exercise this will" is simply preposterous. I have never met so many people who believe in fatalistic determinism as in these philosophy forums. In the real world, you just don't see encounter that belief. The fact that there are people out there who are literally in chains does not in any way entail 'fatalistic determinism'. You miss the point. Moreover, your last sentence is uninformed - have you ever been to India? cortes wrote: Given your dark view of human existence, I am not the least bit offended that you are "disgusted" with my philosophy. You seem determined to wallow in your suffering and to rationalize such behavior and to pretend it is common. Fortunately, it is not. While I am happy to plead guilty to being an opportunist extremist, the people I encounter in life are far closer to my own views than to the dark picture you have presented. As to the claim that opportunists do not create or act with kindness, this is refuted by all the evidence. Yes, the tormented artists often create great works of art but most of civilization is built by those with far more positive attitudes than you have described. Inded, research shows that it is the happy, well adjusted individual who is most inclined toward charity. The determination I have is not to 'wallow' in suffering, but to acknowledge and respect its power and uses. People who believe in achieving social justice do not wallow in suffering, they are attempting to create a means whereby there is less of it. This is an extremely simple observation, and I am surprised you have not grasped this. The charitable act is in fact a way to make the world other than what it is. Without this premise, no charitable act makes sense. Other acts that try or have tried to make the world other than what it is: 1. The abolition of slavery 2. Medical research 3. The anti-apartheid movement 4. Aid work in 3rd world countries 5. Environmentalism 6. Granting women the vote None of these acts are undertaken without a keen sense of injustice, which is, despite your self-deception about the matter, a universal human trait. Or should I say, a near-universal trait, were it not for insensitive and narrow-minded opportunism.
_____________________ 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
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/17/08 - 07:31 AM:	#55
coolazice wrote: The fact that there are people out there who are literally in chains does not in any way entail 'fatalistic determinism'. You miss the point. Moreover, your last sentence is uninformed - have you ever been to India? Yes, I have been to India and it is not the worst I have seen. (And it is most interesting that today India is throwing off the chains of "social justice" and embracing opportunity.) coolazice wrote: The determination I have is not to 'wallow' in suffering, but to acknowledge and respect its power and uses. People who believe in achieving social justice do not wallow in suffering, they are attempting to create a means whereby there is less of it. This is an extremely simple observation, and I am surprised you have not grasped this. No, people who are obsessed with "social justice" respect and use suffering because it is their employer and their partner in attaining power; they rely on thir victims wallowing in suffering which is precisely why you are so "disgusted" by my philosophy. Suffering is aleviated by those who pursue opportunity (e.g. in the sciences, medicine, economics, etc.). Such opportunities show no respect for justice. One era may be the economic boon for rich nations, another (as today) for the third world. coolazice wrote: The charitable act is in fact a way to make the world other than what it is. Without this premise, no charitable act makes sense. Our disagreement is not between making the world better or not. It is between pursuing "social justice" or a different ideal. Charity is not social justice. I don't care whether or not the person I act with charity towards is justified in receiving my gift. In fact, one of the great things about charitable giving is that I can direct my gifts away from those who claim they have a "right" to it and toward those who will make the best use of it. "Social justice" is a man-made disease of self-destruction.
_____________________ 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: 144

Posted 05/17/08 - 08:43 AM:	#56
cortes wrote: 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. Justification is judging and judging is comparison. To justify or judge, you have to compare one thing to another. You are making a statement that existence is undeserved. But, to 'what' are you making your comparison? You are comparing existence with________? Is there anything other than 'non-existence in which to compare existence? If that is your comparison, then there is still no basis on which to make your claim that 'existence' is undeserved. I know that people make your kinds of statements all the time. But, that does not mean they are logical statements. In fact, they are illogical because they are clearly defining the things which they compare. But, any judgement requires a comparison and every comparison requires two things. You want to make your statement 'general'. But, general or specific, you must define with what you are comparing existence. cortes wrote: 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. I believe that most everyone would agree that a human being has no control over his birth. As to ignoring the source, that makes no sense to me. Lets just say that there is no need to talk about the source. When you say that existence is undeserved, you are leaping into something different than just saying that a human has no control over his birth or no control over his having come into existence. Just because a person has no control over their having come into existence, has nothing to do with whether they deserved to come into existence or not. When you introduce 'deserved' or 'undeserved' you open up the area of judgement. And, again, this is COMPARISON. You have to identify the two things that you are comparing. You can't just say that I am comparing existence and existence is undeserved. What are you COMPARING existence? You have to identify it! Without identifying it, you are only making illogical statements. cortes wrote: I could receive a package in the mail with no return address. Ok...you receive a package in the mail. Now, you want to leap to the conclusion that 'you did not deserve the package'. However, receiving a package in the mail has nothing to do with 'deserving' or 'undeserving'. You simply received a package in the mail. No...you don't have to know the who sent it, nor can you make the claim you did not deserve it! Are you comparing yourself to someone that did not receive a package in the mail? Ok, so another person did not receive a package in the mail. One person receives a package in the mail and another one does not. That is simply a fact and not a judgement. You could say that since you received a package in the mail that the other person should have received one in the mail too. But, why should the other person receive a package in the mail? Why should you have received a package in the mail? The question of 'why' is ridiculous because it just happened. You received a package and you never expected it and you don't know who sent it. It just showed up at your mail box. This is like you are standing in a field and get struck by lighting. You might argue that you did not deserve to be struck by lightening. But, you are making a judgement. You are comparing yourself, probably to a person that did not get struck by lightening. But, because one person gets struck by lightening and another does not really has nothing to do with 'deserving'. They are just facts! There are situations in life in which a person has no responsibility. You could be driving down the road and someone swerve into your lane and hit you head-on. You could be walking across your yard and meteorite could fall on you. An earthquake could kill you. A tornado could kill you. Lightening could strike you. Like Victor Frankyl, you could be thrown in a prison camp. There are all sorts of things that can happen and things that happen on a daily basis for which you are not responsible. In other words, stuff happens. cortes wrote: 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. You need to understand that you are presenting your ideas within a philosophical context and they will have to be clear and precise. You cannot just make vague statements and expect others to follow your ideas. The problem with most peoples ideas are this very vagueness. They have never sat down and tried to clarify their ideas. They begin by asking vauge questions and they arrive at vague conclusions. Just because others make vague statments, such as life is undeserved, does not mean you can make a philosophical perspective out of this statement. Sure I understand what the statement means. They are saying that their life is unfair because they have to work, they feel pain, they are unhappy, they are not rich, they don't have a new car, and etc. But, because they don't have all the luxuries that others may have, or that they are afflicted with pain, does not mean they deserve the opposite. Maybe you should have begun your discussion with saying that most people believe that existence is existence is deserved, and that you are going to present ideas to the affect that this is their judging and that they don't have anything with which to make a comparison. I believe you need to go back and rework your introduction. cortes wrote: 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. If you are saying that you refute the idea that society owes people, then why don't you just make that part of your introduction. Say that 'society' does not 'owe' its members. This leads to another observation. Society is composed of its members. Therefore, if 'society' owed its members, this would mean that some members 'owe' something to other members. In other words, some people 'owe' other people something. Now, you can present the case that you see no 'reason' why one member of society should owe something to another member of society. This gives you a starting point for your arguments. However, you cannot say that 'existence' does not owe human beings anything. Existence would include everything, including the entire cosmos, and this would be a nonsense argument. Should a molecule 'owe' me something? Should a rock owe me something? Should a star owe me something? Should a galaxy owe me something? Should all the stars and planets in the universe owe me something? Do you see how nonsensical this argument is? If you will go back and just make the claim that society does not owe its members anything, then you have a good starting point to make your case.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/17/08 - 11:14 AM:	#57
optrader wrote: Justification is judging and judging is comparison. To justify or judge, you have to compare one thing to another. You are making a statement that existence is undeserved. But, to 'what' are you making your comparison? We can compare birth to earning a salary and to receiving a gift from a stranger. The question is which is birth more like? We say the salary is deserved because the person did something to earn it. Before the salary, there was the labor. Hence the salary is deserved. But the gift from a stranger is undeserved. It was not earned. We judge that existence is more like a gift from a stranger than an earned salary. optrader wrote: I believe that most everyone would agree that a human being has no control over his birth. As to ignoring the source, that makes no sense to me. Lets just say that there is no need to talk about the source. When you say that existence is undeserved, you are leaping into something different than just saying that a human has no control over his birth or no control over his having come into existence. Just because a person has no control over their having come into existence, has nothing to do with whether they deserved to come into existence or not. See above. Let me know if it does not answer your point here. optrader wrote: Ok...you receive a package in the mail. Now, you want to leap to the conclusion that 'you did not deserve the package'. Wait a minute! I only offered the package in the mail to show that it is possible to receive something without knowing the giver. Nothing more. Hence we should stop worrying about who/what gave us the gift of life. (If you are fortunate to know your biological parents this is nice but it is not important to my argument.) optrader wrote: There are situations in life in which a person has no responsibility. You could be driving down the road and someone swerve into your lane and hit you head-on. You could be walking across your yard and meteorite could fall on you. An earthquake could kill you. A tornado could kill you. Lightening could strike you. Like Victor Frankyl, you could be thrown in a prison camp. There are all sorts of things that can happen and things that happen on a daily basis for which you are not responsible. In other words, stuff happens. Absolutely. And it would be entirely appropriate to say that such were undeserved though I would argue that neither was the opposite deserved though life is never so simple. (People get zapped by lightning all the time standing outside in a thunderstorm.) Perhaps I should simply state more clearly that if something is not deserved then it is undeserved. (~a=~a as opposed to your ~a AND ~~a). optrader wrote: You need to understand that you are presenting your ideas within a philosophical context and they will have to be clear and precise. You cannot just make vague statements and expect others to follow your ideas. Precision is a valuable antidote to confusion but we have yet to determine where the confusion lies. optrader wrote: Sure I understand what the statement means. They are saying that their life is unfair because they have to work, they feel pain, they are unhappy, they are not rich, they don't have a new car, and etc. But, because they don't have all the luxuries that others may have, or that they are afflicted with pain, does not mean they deserve the opposite. Maybe you should have begun your discussion with saying that most people believe that existence is existence is deserved, and that you are going to present ideas to the affect that this is their judging and that they don't have anything with which to make a comparison. I believe you need to go back and rework your introduction. Perhaps so. But what I did offer, as you recall, was a general negative claim. What you are describing are specific examples that fit that negative claim. optrader wrote: If you are saying that you refute the idea that society owes people, then why don't you just make that part of your introduction. Say that 'society' does not 'owe' its members. Right, but my claim is more general than that. This is simply the most common modern form of it. optrader wrote: This leads to another observation. Society is composed of its members. Therefore, if 'society' owed its members, this would mean that some members 'owe' something to other members. In other words, some people 'owe' other people something. Now, you can present the case that you see no 'reason' why one member of society should owe something to another member of society... I don't want to go down the path of trying to deal with each and every claim of 'owing'. It's tedious and somone will always offer some variation that I had not covered. A general rule sweeps them away in toto and clears the deck to move forward with Covenant Theory. Essentially, I throw down a gauntlet to anyone with a claim of 'owing' to show me how the debt was acquired in the firm confidence that there is no evidence that I agreed to any conditions for my birth. That just seems to me to be a much more efficient way of dealing with such claims. BTW, we are fortunate to have in this tread just such a person: coolazice. Let's see what he can come up with.
_____________________ 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: 144

Posted 05/17/08 - 12:47 PM:	#58
cortes wrote: Hence the salary is deserved. But the gift from a stranger is undeserved. It was not earned. We judge that existence is more like a gift from a stranger than an earned salary. I do not judge that existence is more like a gift from a stranger. I am different from the majority? Do the majority of people believe that existence is like a gift from a stranger? How many people frequenting this forum will state their perspective on this question? I would like to know. Cortes, I am not so sure you are correct in your statement. If so, then it is a statistical probability. I know you are just trying to make a general statement. But, I am not sure that it is a 'general' statement. It would require what percentage of the people to believe it to be classified as 'general'? Are we talking about 90% of the population? 60% of the population? You see, you are saying that 'we judge existence' to be 'like a gift'. But, who is this 'we'? Not me! I don't 'judge' life to be a gift at all. cortes wrote: we should stop worrying about who/what gave us the gift of life. Again, you make this general statement that life is a gift. If so, you have to define who/what gave the gift. Yes, I know you are just making a general statement. But, your statement cannot be argued because no matter which way you present it, it makes no sense. You can say life is a gift or you can say that life is not a gift. It makes no difference. Life and gift cannot be made into a logical statement. You might say that someone gave me their live and 'gave' me more years of life. But, they simply left word to have their liver donated, you were the receipent, and you lived longer than you would have without the liver. They did not 'give you life'. No one can 'give' you life. cortes wrote: Perhaps I should simply state more clearly that if something is not deserved then it is undeserved. Ha! Something deserved/undeserved is a judgement, a comparison, and you have to present the giver and the reciepent of the gift. There is just no way around this argument. cortes wrote: Precision is a valuable antidote to confusion but we have yet to determine where the confusion lies. The confusion lies in your vague statements! Clarify your statements and then you can build on them. cortes wrote: Perhaps so. But what I did offer, as you recall, was a general negative claim. What you are describing are specific examples that fit that negative claim. Yes, I know! The simple fact is that your general negative claim is an incomplete claim. You just cannot seem to see that you cannot say that "life is undeserved" and then go forward to prove it until you state who does not deserve life, to whom are they being compared, who makes the judgement, and why they believe their judgement to be true. cortes wrote: A general rule sweeps them away in toto and clears the deck to move forward with Covenant Theory. Essentially, I throw down a gauntlet to anyone with a claim of 'owing' to show me how the debt was acquired in the firm confidence that there is no evidence that I agreed to any conditions for my birth. That just seems to me to be a much more efficient way of dealing with such claims. Your general statements need clarification before you can build on them. I have rephrased your two principles. Do you think this makes them more clear and are you still able to build your Covenant Theory on them? 1) There is a general assumption that we deserve to exist. But, this is a judgement and a judgement requires a comparison. If 'we' deserve to exist, then there must be 'others' that do not deserve to exist. Then, we need to know why we deserve to exist and these others do no deserve to exist. If we make the assumption that this general statement refers to society owing us our existence, then arguments can be made pro or con. And, as far as myself, I will argue that 'society' does not 'owe' any member of it their existence. Society is concept and not an entity. If 'society' owes 'us', then this means that 'other' members in our society owes 'us' our existence. 2) People say that they are not indebted to their existence. But, to whom would they be indebted if they were indebted? Again, lets look at society. 'We', as members of a society, do not 'owe' 'other' members in the society for our existence.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/18/08 - 07:33 AM:	#59
I wonder if perhaps our lingering disagreement is a result of our different approaches to truth. My approach is pragmatic, as I stated in the OP. You, I presume, lean more toward correspondence. I am satisfied that saying "life is a gift" communicates an idea about the nature of life even if it does not correspond in all respects. You seem unwilling to take such a loose approach and continue to insist that the gift giver must be identified for the description to hold. Another possibility is that you are unwilling to accept that life is undeserved because you fear it will mean devaluing life. Keda made a point a while back that I never followed up on but perhaps now would be a good time. He made the distinction between deserving life and being worthy of life. This is a good distinction. To deserve something, as is generally meant, and as I mean it, you must do something first. You must earn it. But that is not the case with being worthy. One can prove one's worthniess after the fact or simply hold worthiness as an axiomatic position. Worthininess also does not imply expectation: I may be worthy of a long, healthy life but that doesn't mean I expect one. Ok, now to your points. optrader wrote: I do not judge that existence is more like a gift from a stranger. Those who object have yet to state a reasonable basis for objection. Nobody has yet argued that life is more like a salary than a gift, which is the comparison I offered. Nobody has yet made any argument whatsoever that life is deserved. Even you seem bent on simply avoiding the question with your claim that life is neither deserved nor undeserved (neither a nor ~a as we would say in logic). optrader wrote: Again, you make this general statement that life is a gift. If so, you have to define who/what gave the gift. Sure I can. Because the truth of my claim does not depend on the source and becase, as you already conceded, it is possible to receive something without knowing the sender. optrader wrote: You might say that someone gave me their live and 'gave' me more years of life. But, they simply left word to have their liver donated, you were the receipent, and you lived longer than you would have without the liver. They did not 'give you life'. No one can 'give' you life. I think it is perfectly appropriate to say that your parents gave you life or that an organ doner gave you extra life. I don't know why you are hung up on this point. In each case it commincates an idea that leads to a better understanding of reality than absent the idea. optrader wrote: You just cannot seem to see that you cannot say that "life is undeserved" and then go forward to prove it until you state who does not deserve life, to whom are they being compared, who makes the judgement, and why they believe their judgement to be true. We can each judge that our own life is undeserved as compared to things that are deserved and as follows from the understanding of "deserved". (That is really the only judgement of interest to me.) optrader wrote: 1) There is a general assumption that we deserve to exist. But, this is a judgement and a judgement requires a comparison. If 'we' deserve to exist, then there must be 'others' that do not deserve to exist. Then, we need to know why we deserve to exist and these others do no deserve to exist. If we make the assumption that this general statement refers to society owing us our existence, then arguments can be made pro or con. And, as far as myself, I will argue that 'society' does not 'owe' any member of it their existence. Society is concept and not an entity. If 'society' owes 'us', then this means that 'other' members in our society owes 'us' our existence. This is a rather peculiar claim. If, for example, I claimed that squares are not round it would not follow that some squares are round and others are not and that I was making a comparson among round squares and square squares. I think you are making a fundamental logical error of some sort here if you believe that claiming that there must be some who deserve to exist and others who do not as opposed to my blanket statement that nobody deserves to exist. As to the second point, you illustrate exactly why I don't go down that path. I am quite simply looking at the defintion of "deserve", to earn something, and finding that it precludes existence. And then I am following through on the implications of that observation. Very simple. Note that nobody has yet stepped forward to defend the view that people deserve their existence although we both know that it is a popular opinion. optrader wrote: 2) People say that they are not indebted to their existence. But, to whom would they be indebted if they were indebted? Again, lets look at society. 'We', as members of a society, do not 'owe' 'other' members in the society for our existence. In both cases, to be more specific on the role of the individual in society is something I have saved for Covenant Theory. So I don't want to start that debate prematurely. Perhaps a better illustration here would be our parents. But, again, that would merely serve as an illustration because the general statement would stand on its own. If I say I have no IOUs in my wallet I don't need to provide a list of people I don't have an IOU to in my wallet.
_____________________ 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: 21
Total Posts: 207

Posted 05/18/08 - 07:39 AM:	#60
cortes wrote: Yes, I have been to India and it is not the worst I have seen. (And it is most interesting that today India is throwing off the chains of "social justice" and embracing opportunity.) Alright then (since you ignored my point again - which was that Indians are by and large very deterministic) - Many of the Indians I met were Muslim, which as you are probably aware is a religion which places a great deal of focus on social justice, more so than any other main world religion. Have these people thrown off the chains of 'social justice'? Or do millions of people not count if they don't share your worldview? cortes wrote: No, people who are obsessed with "social justice" respect and use suffering because it is their employer and their partner in attaining power; they rely on thir victims wallowing in suffering which is precisely why you are so "disgusted" by my philosophy. I can think of many people keen on social justice who were not really interested in attaining power - you are generalising, sir, and over-simplifying. And kindly do not put words in my mouth, I have already told you why I am disgusted with your philosophy, and it is not for the reason you are trying to claim. cortes wrote: Our disagreement is not between making the world better or not. It is between pursuing "social justice" or a different ideal. Charity is not social justice. I don't care whether or not the person I act with charity towards is justified in receiving my gift. What I care about is getting rid of injustice. If you and I can agree that certain things in the world are or have been unjust (and I think we can, because you did not respond to my list of 6, and because you want to 'make the world better'), I see no reason why we should then take any 'opportunity' to get rid of that state of injustice. You are presenting a false dichotomy, and pretending that opportunists have no feelings of what is just (they usually do, unless they are psychopaths, such as Cortes). I'm also sure you would care if the person you gave charity to turned out to be someone who lied to you about what they were using the charity for. Why? Because it interferes with your sense of what is 'fair', what 'ought' to be the case. I honestly don't see how you can argue otherwise. Do you deny that you as a person have this sense at all? If so, I think you have no right to claim that most people are like you. Please try the following: 1. Explain why it is you think that most people do not have their own sense of what is fair or unfair (i.e. justice). 2. Explain why having a sense of justice is 'destructive' 3. Explain why wanting the world to be 'other than it is' is bad/destructive (these are your words) 4. Explain why we have unfairness to thank for our existence.
_____________________ 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."

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 144

Posted 05/18/08 - 09:22 AM:	#61
cortes wrote: I wonder if perhaps our lingering disagreement is a result of our different approaches to truth. My approach is pragmatic, as I stated in the OP. You, I presume, lean more toward correspondence. I am satisfied that saying "life is a gift" communicates an idea about the nature of life even if it does not correspond in all respects. You seem unwilling to take such a loose approach and continue to insist that the gift giver must be identified for the description to hold. I am not satisfied that 'life is a gift' communicates anything about the nature of life. I don't perceive 'gift' to be a 'property' of life. Life is not a thing and therefore it cannot be given anything. Life is a process and not an entity. It is a descriptive word. Like Branden said, "to be, is to be something". We could say that you and I have been given life. But, that would make the assumption that 'life' is a 'thing'. But, life is a process. How can you be given a process? You don't seem to be able to percieve the innate contradictions in your claims. cortes wrote: Another possibility is that you are unwilling to accept that life is undeserved because you fear it will mean devaluing life. I perceive life as neutral. As I have said, it is a process and not a thing. I don't see it as something deserved or undeserved because the whole idea is a nonsense idea. cortes wrote: Keda made a point a while back that I never followed up on but perhaps now would be a good time. He made the distinction between deserving life and being worthy of life. This is a good distinction. Both Keda and you are talking like a couple of religious believers where God has 'given' you life and you were 'undeserving' of his gift. If this is the case, then you need to state it from the very beginning. You keep talking about a 'gift' but can never seem to be able to identify the 'giver'. This is not a small matter. It is the axiom from which you build your entire philosophy. You cannot answer my question about the gift and the giver because this would destroy the foundation of your 'logic'. cortes wrote: To deserve something, as is generally meant, and as I mean it, you must do something first. You must earn it. But that is not the case with being worthy. One can prove one's worthniess after the fact or simply hold worthiness as an axiomatic position. Worthininess also does not imply expectation: I may be worthy of a long, healthy life but that doesn't mean I expect one. This being worthy and such is just a bunch of crap. To whom are you 'worthy'? What you are doing is building a whole philosophical system on a religious foundation without stating that your approach is from the point of a religious believer.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/18/08 - 10:46 AM:	#62
Just so you know, I am genuinely still trying to figure out what your objection is. I am working on the assumption that you are not simply being argumentative. One objection that you have offered is that I'm too vague. And yet you seem to understand what I'm saying. Maybe you just prefer more precision for its own sake. optrader wrote: I am not satisfied that 'life is a gift' communicates anything about the nature of life. I don't perceive 'gift' to be a 'property' of life. Life is not a thing and therefore it cannot be given anything. Life is a process and not an entity. It is a descriptive word. Like Branden said, "to be, is to be something". We could say that you and I have been given life. But, that would make the assumption that 'life' is a 'thing'. But, life is a process. How can you be given a process? You don't seem to be able to percieve the innate contradictions in your claims. I find this to be a very useful concept both for dealing with reality for comunicating ideas about it. Linguistly, ife is a noun and in the loosest sense a thing (it's not a person or place). A process is a thing (it's not a verb or an adjective). optrader wrote: Both Keda and you are talking like a couple of religious believers where God has 'given' you life and you were 'undeserving' of his gift. If this is the case, then you need to state it from the very beginning. You keep talking about a 'gift' but can never seem to be able to identify the 'giver'. This is not a small matter. It is the axiom from which you build your entire philosophy. You cannot answer my question about the gift and the giver because this would destroy the foundation of your 'logic'. I don't need to answer it because it is not relevant. If your concern about identifying the giver is out of hostility to the idea of God then you are simply making a mounting out of a molehill. Honestly, I'm not trying to sneak in God in the first principle. He gets only a very small role in a digression in Covenant Theory. optrader wrote: This being worthy and such is just a bunch of crap. To whom are you 'worthy'? What you are doing is building a whole philosophical system on a religious foundation without stating that your approach is from the point of a religious believer. You are probably going to have some problems with Nathaniel Brandon then. As you are probably aware Brandon is not a religoius person. But he places self-worth front and center in The Six Pillars of Self Esteem.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/18/08 - 10:57 AM:	#63
coolazice wrote: Alright then (since you ignored my point again - which was that Indians are by and large very deterministic) - Many of the Indians I met were Muslim, which as you are probably aware is a religion which places a great deal of focus on social justice, more so than any other main world religion. Have these people thrown off the chains of 'social justice'? Or do millions of people not count if they don't share your worldview? People who disagree with me are quite simply wrong. (In this case, wrong on two counts, determinism and the desirability of "social justice".) coolazice wrote: I can think of many people keen on social justice who were not really interested in attaining power - you are generalising, sir, and over-simplifying. And kindly do not put words in my mouth, I have already told you why I am disgusted with your philosophy, and it is not for the reason you are trying to claim. It is quite obvious from your prior posts that you have invested yourself in a desire for suffering because you want to allow only one exit: "social justice". coolazice wrote: What I care about is getting rid of injustice. Then start by exterminating yourself because your existence is unjust. coolazice wrote: If you and I can agree that certain things in the world are or have been unjust ...I see no reason why we should then take any 'opportunity' to get rid of that state of injustice. Yes, we both agree that the world is unjust. And I am quite grateful for the injustice of the world for my existence depends on it. coolazice wrote: You are presenting a false dichotomy, and pretending that opportunists have no feelings of what is just (they usually do, unless they are psychopaths, such as Cortes). Nonesense. I've said repeatedly that a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Now what can we do to make the world more just? coolazice wrote: I'm also sure you would care if the person you gave charity to turned out to be someone who lied to you about what they were using the charity for. Why? Because it interferes with your sense of what is 'fair', what 'ought' to be the case. Well, no, because it interferes with my ability to direct charity toward desired causes. If I choose to give charity to one-eyed Irishmen then I will be unhappy if an Irismman fakes an eye injury or a German pretends an Irish accent in order to collect charity from me. coolazice wrote: I honestly don't see how you can argue otherwise. Do you deny that you as a person have this sense at all? If so, I think you have no right to claim that most people are like you. Please try the following: 1. Explain why it is you think that most people do not have their own sense of what is fair or unfair (i.e. justice). 2. Explain why having a sense of justice is 'destructive' 3. Explain why wanting the world to be 'other than it is' is bad/destructive (these are your words) 4. Explain why we have unfairness to thank for our existence. 1) I think they do. So what? 2) Because it leads to destroying things, wealth and people most typically. Societies that are organized to minize "social injustice" tend to underperform those that allow it. Those most consumed with it tend to end up exterminating people 3) I never said that. I am distinguishing between two forms of idealism: "social justice" and opportunism. 4) Because we don't deserve to exist. What did you ever do to deserve being born?
_____________________ 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: 144

Posted 05/18/08 - 02:54 PM:	#64
cortes said: Just so you know, I am genuinely still trying to figure out what your objection is. I am working on the assumption that you are not simply being argumentative. No, I am not here to just be argumentative. I have truly tried to get started understanding your philosophy. Of course, where I perceive some illogic, I will point that out. cortes said: One objection that you have offered is that I'm too vague. And yet you seem to understand what I'm saying. Maybe you just prefer more precision for its own sake. I understand what you are saying. I disagree with what you are saying. When you say that life is undeserved, you expect me to agree or disagree. However, I perceive the statement to be nonsense, an illogical statement. I know a lot of people make these broad generalizations. But, I think they lack critical thinking. cortes said: I don't need to answer it because it is not relevant. If your concern about identifying the giver is out of hostility to the idea of God then you are simply making a mounting out of a molehill. Honestly, I'm not trying to sneak in God in the first principle. He gets only a very small role in a digression in Covenant Theory. I have had to make an assumption as to who/whom/what this 'giver' is, because you have refused to identify the giver. You keep saying that life is a gift. If so, who/whom/what gave this 'gift'? It is a very simple question and it is completely relevant to teh whole foundation of your philosophy. It is beyond my grasp as to why you cannot see the critical importance of this one simple question. But, that is what is wrong with a lot of peoples concepts and philosophy of life. They have never stopped to do some critical thinking about the very foundation of their ideas. I read your page on the Covenant Theory and I did not really find anything with which I found a disagreement. It is a simple model of a human society.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/18/08 - 06:05 PM:	#65
optrader wrote: I read your page on the Covenant Theory and I did not really find anything with which I found a disagreement. It is a simple model of a human society. What this suggests to me is that our disagreement is more style than substance. You would not frame the ideas that I have presented in the same way but if you agree with what I wrote in Covenant Theory then our seperate ideas are functionally equivalent (that far at least). Did you follow the debate over the non-initiation of force? That was the one area where I departed from Rand. optrader wrote: But, that is what is wrong with a lot of peoples concepts and philosophy of life. They have never stopped to do some critical thinking about the very foundation of their ideas. Contrast our disagreements with my dispute with coolasice. In his case, it is most painfully clear that we are in fundamental disagreement. He exemplifies exactly the type of thinking that I am stomping on. I would expect that with him, the more clearly he understands me, the more he will object to my ideas and vice versa. With you, however, it is unclear that our disagreement is of that nature.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 05/19/08 - 07:37 AM:	#66
cortes wrote: There is nothing in my doorstep scenario to suggest that the person knocking on the door is of the same society as the person answering. The concept of "deserve" does not depend on a social context. I'm sorry, you really have lost me this time; I don't know what products you have turned to now, but could I get some??? The concept "deserve" will always be founded upon the social context. You seemed, earlier to sway from the social meaning, to the metaphysical idea, or concept of "fairness" - ironically, you were turning it into a Rawlsian framework. If there is a concept, then we need to reach some agreement, and if we don't reach an agreement, then this means that we are talking about different things. "fairness" has a concrete meaning in our real world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness "equality before the law." This is grounded on the idea that a person should not have preferential treatment, for being a God, King, or Lord; such Authority was questioned, and found to be without planks of wood (remember the Age of Enlightenment??). Look, there are all sorts of hard problems assigning cause and effect without experimentation. We don't need to get caught up in these to understand the meaningfulnss of the claim. Sorry bud, you have lost me again? also, what was that turtle stuff all about? What claim are you referring to?? All I was saying is that children are born into circumstance, and sometimes wealth can be a bad thing for them, especially character. They need to find determinism as a route to success, not "hard work" or whatever clap trap idea, this is placing the cart infront of the horse, hard work comes from the circumstance, not the other way. Let me be more precise then. I do not dispute that some people are born with more than others. Ooookkkay.... we are on the same page so far, I am disputing a) that the starting point determines the ending point, and b) that there is any value in redistributing the goodies more fairly. If the universe were fair we would not exist. It's Interesting, I suppose, in a boring way perhaps, this whole idea of "fairness" - doesn't it depend on where we stand with "fairness"? A Buddhist might say the world was fair, but include violence, death, and DEFEAT!! as a way of life- as a reality...as part of "Fairness" they even have this idea of KARMA, but I don't know much about that. - The philosophical point though, is that your understanding of "fairness" could be radically different from another. Right. That is the part we agree on. I would even agree that humility is a valuable virtue. Indeed, what could be more humbling than to acknowledge that we do not deserve to exist? In the sense "that 'I' never acted out some miraculous action before I was born, then YES i do not deserve to be born. "Desert" is something we discuss after the nascent period: a contextual subject. It is, in fact, a concept taken from that genre. If I ever got around to publishing the Philosophy of Conquistadorianism it would probably be categorized as such. Now the third point is largely implied by the first two but I added it after reading The Success Principles by Jack Canfield. He rightly emphasizes the point as central and, agreeing with him, I didn't want to let be merely implied. Now there is an interesting question whether philosophy in general ought to be categorized as "self-help". Plato had some very definite ideas about how to life a good life. Yes Indeed. What would you prefer....the quantity, or the quality? I think Quality of life must always dictate action- and for this reason many think me an egoist; I just think I act with nature, I am selfish - but so are other people.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/19/08 - 08:33 AM:	#67
litkey wrote: The concept "deserve" will always be founded upon the social context. It is false to claim that people who appeal to what they "deserve" are always making the appeal within a social context. You need only look at the condemnation of war and slavery to see a perfect example. Indeed, the phrase "inalienable rights" is explicitly contrary to your exclusively social concept. Now it is true that you and I have mostly agreed that a social conext is required but we are not everyone. litkey wrote: You seemed, earlier to sway from the social meaning, to the metaphysical idea, or concept of "fairness" - ironically, you were turning it into a Rawlsian framework. In this part I am focusing on the "metaphysical". I take on the social context in Covenant Theory. (You can compare my approach there to Rawls.) litkey wrote: "fairness" has a concrete meaning in our real world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness And yet you point to a source that lists several. What does the phrase "life is not fair" mean to you? litkey wrote: "equality before the law." This is grounded on the idea that a person should not have preferential treatment, for being a God, King, or Lord; such Authority was questioned, and found to be without planks of wood (remember the Age of Enlightenment??). Equality before the law is one concept of fairness. It is quite at odds with others that are based on equality of outcome since those explicitly require taking into one's standing in order to balance outcomes. litkey wrote: All I was saying is that children are born into circumstance, and sometimes wealth can be a bad thing for them, especially character. Certainly the first part is true. And affluenza can be a problem for lazy parents. But then even food can be a problem; just look at all the fat people. litkey wrote: They need to find determinism as a route to success, not "hard work" or whatever clap trap idea, this is placing the cart infront of the horse, hard work comes from the circumstance, not the other way. That makes no sense. You don't "find" determinism. Either outcomes are determined by prior conditions or not. Either you have a choice or you don't. litkey wrote: It's Interesting, I suppose, in a boring way perhaps, this whole idea of "fairness" - doesn't it depend on where we stand with "fairness"? A Buddhist might say the world was fair, but include violence, death, and DEFEAT!! as a way of life- as a reality...as part of "Fairness" they even have this idea of KARMA, but I don't know much about that. - The philosophical point though, is that your understanding of "fairness" could be radically different from another. So much for a precise meaning of "fairness". No, I am referring primarily to the socialist concept of fair but really any that is based on "justice" will suffice. Even a Buddhist would concede that this life is not fair which is why extra-life karma is introduced as a balance. litkey wrote: In the sense "that 'I' never acted out some miraculous action before I was born, then YES i do not deserve to be born. "Desert" is something we discuss after the nascent period: a contextual subject. Well, then, that is the point. (Of course we can always pick and choose where and when we want to apply justice. But that would not be just. For justice to be just it must apply in toto.) If someone asks me to justify my existence, I tell them to "fuck off". Why then should I bother to justify anything else? (I am here, again, speaking outside a social context, but who would enter into a social contract that might require them to justify the unjustiable?)
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 05/19/08 - 01:29 PM:	#68
We do not gain the notion of being a 'self' without encountering the mirrored 'self' in others. It is profoundly incoherent to speak of a human personal identity independently coming into existence without a society....a proto-human organism does not constitute human existence and without our interpersonal mirroring we remain psychologically empty we remain proto-human... and unable to develop identities where we might go on to develop such societally and historically derived notions as Philosophy of Conquistadorianism.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/19/08 - 01:54 PM:	#69
Glypt wrote: We do not gain the notion of being a 'self' without encountering the mirrored 'self' in others. It is profoundly incoherent to speak of a human personal identity independently coming into existence without a society....a proto-human organism does not constitute human existence and without our interpersonal mirroring we remain psychologically empty we remain proto-human... and unable to develop identities where we might go on to develop such societally and historically derived notions as Philosophy of Conquistadorianism. You are mistaken on several points. First, it is not incoherent to construct a theory from parts even when we know that the parts will eventually come together. In fact, that is how most people approach any subject. We don't, for example, say that biology is incoherent absent a discussion of astrophysics. This approach has a long tradition within philosophy and science. Second, the existence of others does not imply a society. A society is more than a collection of people. Moreover, even allowing that society is inherent to the human condition, we can easily discuss the situation of people stepping outside their own society as my hypothetical scenarios in Covenant Theory demonstrate. Finally, we always have the possibility of acting without regard for society without physically leaving it in every practical sense. Profoundly coherent.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 05/20/08 - 03:21 AM:	#70
Where our actions are the results of our beliefs and desires, and our beliefs and desires are held in relation to our self-perception, and our self-perceptions are the result of encountering 'the other' that is inherrent in society "…the possibility of acting without regard for society" is a profoundly incoherent position for we are "in regard" to ourselves necessarily, because our 'self' consists in and of "the Other" necessarily. Merely stating the possibility of imagined counterfactual notion does not alter that state of affairs. Mind and "the possibility" of action is drawn from the world, from its history, from its language, from its culture, and the various associated networks supporting "the possibility" of thinking that is contained therein. The above does not put forward a 'point of view' but an irrefutable state of affairs that defines human 'being' and being 'human'. Edited by Glypt on 05/20/08 - 03:26 AM

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/20/08 - 06:11 AM:	#71
Glypt wrote: Where our actions are the results of our beliefs and desires, and our beliefs and desires are held in relation to our self-perception, and our self-perceptions are the result of encountering 'the other' that is inherrent in society "…the possibility of acting without regard for society" is a profoundly incoherent position for we are "in regard" to ourselves necessarily, because our 'self' consists in and of "the Other" necessarily. Merely stating the possibility of imagined counterfactual notion does not alter that state of affairs. Mind and "the possibility" of action is drawn from the world, from its history, from its language, from its culture, and the various associated networks supporting "the possibility" of thinking that is contained therein. The above does not put forward a 'point of view' but an irrefutable state of affairs that defines human 'being' and being 'human'. "Where" indeed. Essentially you are, like Litkey, arguing for determinism. A lazy argument but an argument nonetheless. When you factor in the reality of free will and choice your argument falls apart. The hypotheticals are no longer counter-factual but real possibilities. You can wallow in fate if you choose, I make a different choice.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 05/20/08 - 07:18 AM:	#72
cortes wrote: It is false to claim that people who appeal to what they "deserve" are always making the appeal within a social context. You need only look at the condemnation of war and slavery to see a perfect example. Indeed, the phrase "inalienable rights" is explicitly contrary to your exclusively social concept. Now it is true that you and I have mostly agreed that a social conext is required but we are not everyone. Yes, this is close to the mark, but you need to recall the idea that "fairness" has its linguistical-social place. Much like your "fuck off!" will have its linguistical-social place. This isn't no mystery you understand, a person with money is more likely to say "fuck off" than one without. And yet you point to a source that lists several. What does the phrase "life is not fair" mean to you? Life is fair to me. If I punch you in the face, you might punch me back. That's fair. Equality before the law is one concept of fairness. It is quite at odds with others that are based on equality of outcome since those explicitly require taking into one's standing in order to balance outcomes. You shouldn't speak in tongues, but rather get down to what the words really mean- in the real world that is. Sure "fairness" is used in many different contexts, but we have a shared understanding of what it means. -This was my criticism to your "God" example: "i am God" etc., Either it is retarded, or I never heard you correctly. Certainly the first part is true. And affluenza can be a problem for lazy parents. But then even food can be a problem; just look at all the fat people. Why is there starvation in one corner of the world, and OBESITY in the other? Do people lack control? Is it fair that people should die through no food, and I should die through over-eating? - - again, note the change in context. I'm sure you might agree with one aspect, but disagree with anoter aspect (or use of the concept). That makes no sense. You don't "find" determinism. Either outcomes are determined by prior conditions or not. Either you have a choice or you don't. You're still riding the donkey, and not seeing the forest for the trees. IF a person is born into X circumstances, sure we can agree they have "choice" but these choices are limited, limited to what they understand - - that is determinism in action. Well, then, that is the point. (Of course we can always pick and choose where and when we want to apply justice. But that would not be just. For justice to be just it must apply in toto.) What is "justice" then?
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 144

Posted 05/20/08 - 09:37 AM:	#73
cortes, I am not the only person having problems with your concept of deserving. As litkey stated the concept of deserve must be founded in a social context. Your principle should be stated as 'society does not owe us our existence'. Or, maybe more to the point, 'other people do not owe me my existence'. And, all talk about 'fairness', has to be framed within a social context. And, as litkey pointed out, the concept of fairness just depends on your point of view. Glypt made the point that "We do not gain the notion of being a 'self' without encountering the mirrored 'self' in others." A human being is not a human being unless he has been raised in a human society. We become 'selves' by our interaction with other people. We become conscious of our inner self by being in contact with other selves.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/20/08 - 10:15 AM:	#74
litkey wrote: Yes, this is close to the mark, but you need to recall the idea that "fairness" has its linguistical-social place. Much like your "fuck off!" will have its linguistical-social place. This isn't no mystery you understand, a person with money is more likely to say "fuck off" than one without. There are many people who speak English who are not, in fact, English. You can even find North Koreans who speak English. A shared language does not imply a shared society. litkey wrote: Life is fair to me. If I punch you in the face, you might punch me back. That's fair. Well, then, you have no need for Rawls. litkey wrote: You shouldn't speak in tongues, but rather get down to what the words really mean- in the real world that is. Sure "fairness" is used in many different contexts, but we have a shared understanding of what it means. -This was my criticism to your "God" example: "i am God" etc., Either it is retarded, or I never heard you correctly. There is a fairly shared understanding of "blue" or "hot". Such is not the case with "fair". People argue quite vehemently over what it means. The world is often divided, and nations can go to war, over such differences. litkey wrote: Why is there starvation in one corner of the world, and OBESITY in the other? Do people lack control? Is it fair that people should die through no food, and I should die through over-eating? - - again, note the change in context. I'm sure you might agree with one aspect, but disagree with anoter aspect (or use of the concept). Note above that you claimed the world was fair. Doesn't that imply that it's fair for some to starve while others are obese? Note too that if fairness is only meaningful within society then there is no valid concept of unfairness across nations (eg. between fat Europeans and starving Africans) or just war (e.g. Europeans invading Africa to colonize it). It would be incoherent even to claim that slavery is unjust. (As to the literal question, there are many intereting theories. Among my favorite are those presented in Guns, Germs and Steel (Diamond) and Carnage and Culture (Hanson). litkey wrote: IF a person is born into X circumstances, sure we can agree they have "choice" but these choices are limited, limited to what they understand - - that is determinism in action. That's not determinism. Determinism is not a constraint on choice, it is the absence of choice. It is cause and effect. (And free will is not the absence of constraint.) litkey wrote: What is "justice" then? Per our previous discussion of Rawls, justice must begin with law. There is no justice without law. All the preconditions of law are preconditions of justice. With the law in hand, defining justice is easy: its the application of the law (without unlawful favor). Some try to invoke justice in nature by an appeal to natural law. optrader wrote: Your principle should be stated as 'society does not owe us our existence'. Or, maybe more to the point, 'other people do not owe me my existence'. Again, I think that our disagreement is more style than substance. Note, first, the difference between these two above. I may be surrounded by other people and not necessarily in a society with them. So you yourself have enlarged the negative claim beyond society. And if you are going to deny that other people who you your existence, why not dogs and cats too? Why not trees and rocks? I prefer simple, general, negative claim over all such possible debtors. optrader wrote: And, all talk about 'fairness', has to be framed within a social context. And, as litkey pointed out, the concept of fairness just depends on your point of view. "Has to be" is just misleading. People do, in fact, speak of fairness outside the social context. There are people who believe that it is unfair that some people are born to a good standard of living in one country while others are born to a life of poverty in another country. There is no claim of social bonds between them nor claim that society assigned them to be born in the various places. You are offering a futile attempt to regulate the use of language. You are trying to close the barn door after the horses have already left. optrader wrote: Glypt made the point that "We do not gain the notion of being a 'self' without encountering the mirrored 'self' in others." A human being is not a human being unless he has been raised in a human society. We become 'selves' by our interaction with other people. We become conscious of our inner self by being in contact with other selves. This is just plain false. Humans are a genetic species. If a human were raised by wolves he would still be a human. Moreover, as I pointed out to Glypt, the existence of others does not in and of itself constitute a society. People like Glypt use "society" and "others" interchangably without regard for any sense of reality.
_____________________ 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: 144

Posted 05/20/08 - 08:27 PM:	#75
cortes, it appears quite clear that there are a number of misunderstandings concerning your philosophy, and the reason lies in your ambiguity. Just as talking about 'fairnesss', it has to be framed within some context. Is it 'fair' for a rock to fall down a hill? I suspect most everyone will agree that the rock and fairness cannot be placed in the same context. Whenever you speak of fairness, you are automatically invoking something human. Is it fair for me to rich and that African native to be so poor? This is a question that can invoke some reasonable arguments. To say that life is fair or unfair, is not a question with any context. You have to define what/whom life is fair or unfair. You seem to believe that if a human is raised by wolves that it will still be human. Of course, it will belong to the species Homo Sapien, but it will not be human in the ordinary context, but just another animal, like a wolf or a dog. It will have no sense of self, no language, no ideas composed of sentences. You want to place people on some model island and try to build some kind of social and political system. But, the world is not that way. Everyone comes from somewhere, has a history, has a raising, and where ever they go they carry the effects of that socialization. It may be helpful to build models. But, you must realize that models are just that and can never fully represent a real world situation. cortes said: Moreover, as I pointed out to Glypt, the existence of others does not in and of itself constitute a society. People like Glypt use "society" and "others" interchangably without regard for any sense of reality. I think it is rare to find an individual that is completely isolated from society. In one sense, the whole world is a 'society'. Wherever there are people, there is a 'society'. Even with people that rarely see other people, they carry 'society' in their minds. Your loose usage of words leads to misunderstandings and that is what we are seeing in these discussions. It all goes back to your principles, such as 'existence is undeserved'. You have to define 'existence'. Are you talking about a dogs existence? Are you talking about a frogs existence? I think not. The implications are that a human beings life is undeserved. But, whence comes this 'undeserved'? Who is doing the judging? Are you judging that I do not deserve to be alive? If so, then it is 'you' that is making this statement and it is you that is 'judging'. But, that is only your judgement. Out of billions of people, you are 1/4,000,000,000th of this population and how can such an infinitesimally small entity make such a claim?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.