Philosophy of Conquistadorianism: Philosophy Forums

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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/20/08 - 09:45 PM:	#76
optrader wrote: 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. I was sufficeintly precise for the purpose of my argument: fair means to get what you deserve. To deserve means to be owed for something you have done. We cannot have done anything to deserve our existence therefore we owe our existence to the unfairness of the world. I note once again that nobody has yet put forward an argument that they deserve their existence. If my argument were so imprecise you'd think someone could come up with an interpretation that would contradict my original point. Everybody seems to recognize the futility of that irrespective of the circumstances or the judge. Instead those of you who can't face this simple truth prefer to try to avoid the question altogether by pretending that it is unclear in some way. But all you have offered are claims about ambiguous details that are irrelevant to the issue. optrader wrote: In one sense, the whole world is a 'society'. In no sense is the world a society. For someone who pretends to be concerned about precision you are being most imprecise here and falling into the same trap as Glypt, using "people" and "society" interchangably. This is equivocation of truly monumental proportions. I expect that kind of junk from socialists but you really ought to be embarrased for falling into it. optrader wrote: 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. The world does not exist in a test tube but that doesn't prevent science from advancing knowledge in a labratory. The island scenarios are quite obviously hypothetical but they are nevertheless realistic. There is nothing about them that is contradicted by reality except for the fact that they did not actually happen as described. The advantages of looking at reality by slices is well understood by serious people. If you don't understand that then you are either not up to this discussion or else stooping to gross dishonesty.
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 05/21/08 - 12:55 AM:	#77
Cortes argues: "P1. To deserve means to be owed for something you have done. P2. We cannot have done anything to deserve our existence. C1 Therefore we owe our existence to the unfairness of the world." The first thing to be noticed is that all of the terms, all of the concepts, all of the language; in fact the notion of argumentation itself is contingent upon, derived from, wouldn't exist without…human society. Human existence, the capacity for individual consciousness, the context whereby rational thought is possible etc etc are all defined by individual agency interacting with other agencies in society. The second thing to notice in P1 is its extremely thin definition of desert. One doesn't have to do something in order for one's existence to be justified. There is inherent worth in any organism sentient or non-sentient… all may have a part to play in the sustainment and enrichment of life and for that reason. Life itself has an intrinsic worth, as does consciousness, and the creative dialogue enabled through self-consciousness with that of others in human civilisation. The third thing to notice in P2 is the incoherence of a premise that speculates upon acting prior to existence and the thinness of such a limited direction of fit. Our justification that we deserve our place in the world, if we were to insist that we require one, is that we can take responsibility for our existence even though the latter was not under our control -that is an adult human response. Anyone one who has had children will recognise the infantile ground of a position that abdicates personal responsibility for events just because no direct agency is observable. In that respect there is an immaturity about arguments that refuse to acknowledge what we may owe to each other and what responsibilities we may attach to states of affairs beyond the consequences of our own actions. The forth thing to notice in C1 is the attribute of value in this conclusion where value is absent in any of its premises. Having stated in P1 and P2 an absense of possible desert it states in C1 that 'we owe our existence' (a contradiction). Having denied that society constitutes human 'being' the argument refutes its own ground by attributing a value judgement to a world that is grown from society… history, culture and language. The concept in C1 "the unfairness of the world" is derived from Cortes' engagement with human society. (a further contradiction). Edited by Glypt on 05/21/08 - 03:59 AM

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 841

Posted 05/21/08 - 02:58 AM:	#78
cortes wrote: 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. Yes, and this is why there are many misunderstandings. I don't really understand what the above is supposed to mean, it falls out of context with what we were saying. 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. A "fairly" shared understanding? Maybe right here. "blue" it could be said i) Has a contextual meaning "I am blue in the face!" and ii) Has a reference - The actual colour. although, this being said, the word "blue" is never the actual colour - the word is a mere symbol; and when it comes to meaning - the context means everything. So, when you, I, or anyone, discuss what "fair" means there will necessarily be a shared understanding. Examples could be brought in: is it "fair" that a 20 year old beat a 10 year old? Is it fair that the person was pushed into the road for no reason? Is it fair to force donuts into a fat person's ear? The point prevails - "shared meaning" - - so, when "fair" is used outside any shared meaning ie., "It is fair that I am the king of all kings." It loses its meaning, as does "king" as does "all kings" --There is no basis in reality for my utterance. IF you are going to make an utterance i) It must be tied to the social environment, and be understood by people. 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? Nuremberg trials/ Eqaulity before the Law/ Racial Equality/ Equality for sexes... As you know, the list could go on and on and on...yes, course it is fair. 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. You are going off course here. You don't need the symbol "fair" to understand what it means for something to be fair or unfair - right? In your "hot" example, people will still understand the feeling when they are dipped in hot tar, despite not knowing "hot". 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.) Of course it is determinism. I could say "Your choices are determined from your experience." And this would be true.
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -Hunter S T 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/21/08 - 04:52 AM:	#79
Glypt wrote: The first thing to be noticed is that all of the terms, all of the concepts, all of the language; in fact the notion of argumentation itself is contingent upon, derived from, wouldn't exist without…human society. I don't recall in any of your posts your giving credit to the sun. But as you must be aware, your existence is contingent on the sun. I must surmise therefore that you are, as usual, full of crap. Glypt wrote: The second thing to notice in P1 is its extremely thin definition of desert. One doesn't have to do something in order for one's existence to be justified. There is inherent worth in any organism sentient or non-sentient… Worthiness is another topic altogether. The definition of desert is, in fact, the most commonly used one. If you want to discuss vegetable rights, I started a thread on that in Pseudophilosophy. Glypt wrote: The third thing to notice in P2 is the incoherence of a premise that speculates upon acting prior to existence and the thinness of such a limited direction of fit. Our justification that we deserve our place in the world, if we were to insist that we require one, is that we can take responsibility for our existence even though the latter was not under our control -that is an adult human response. P2 is not incoherent. It is easily understood. It is rather simply true. Taking responsibilty for existence, whatever its virtue, does not meet the defintion of desert. By way of comparison, imagine Bill Gates explaining to Karl Marx that he deserves his wealth because he has taken responsibility for and control of it. Glypt wrote: The forth thing to notice in C1 is the attribute of value in this conclusion where value is absent in any of its premises. See P1. Next! Edited by cortes on 05/21/08 - 05:08 AM
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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/21/08 - 05:05 AM:	#80
litkey wrote: I don't really understand what the above is supposed to mean, it falls out of context with what we were saying. You claimed that sharing a language implied being of the same society when, in fact, there are more non-English English speakers than English English speakers. litkey wrote: So, when you, I, or anyone, discuss what "fair" means there will necessarily be a shared understanding. Funny thing is optrader is arguing the opposite. litkey wrote: IF you are going to make an utterance i) It must be tied to the social environment, and be understood by people. This is precisely the issue. "People" is a vague term that hides a world of confusion. When Marxists get together they know exactly what each other mean by "fair". Similarly for capitalists. When the two meet they are talking at cross-purposes. litkey wrote: cortes wrote: 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. You are going off course here. You don't need the symbol "fair" to understand what it means for something to be fair or unfair - right? Uh, I'm referring to the fact that people make claims about fairness and justice between societies, not merely within them. I"m not referring to the word "fair" in the English language. Note that I am not arguing for that concept, merely point out to you grounding fairness in society means giving up claims of justice and fairness across societies. It means giving up the concepts of just war and the injustice of slavery. litkey wrote: Of course it is determinism. I could say "Your choices are determined from your experience." And this would be true. That would be the claim of determinists. Are we going to debate determinism again?
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 1850

Posted 05/21/08 - 06:07 AM:	#81
Just... wow. "P1. To deserve means to be owed for something you have done. P2. We cannot have done anything to deserve our existence. C1 Therefore we owe our existence to the unfairness of the world." C1 is not a valid conclusion. The valid conclusion, if we were to accept P1 and P2, is that we cannot have done anything to own our existence and any claims about the unfairness of the world are rhetorical embellishments which we can dismiss outright. The world devoid of sentience is morally indifferent. Only sentient beings can make value judgments. We owe our existence to a grand causal chain of a universe coming into existence and evolution bringing us to the point where sexual intercourse leads to us beings being born. These are all causes that we clearly understand as being conducive to our existence but these facts in themselves are entirely morally indifferent. Cortes is confused to think that the indifference of these things as to our existence are predominant moral facts but they are a-moral facts and as such have no bearing to the evaluation of life and the person. The diamant never owed anything to be valued so highly by human kind. But it is valued, just as the value of individualism is recognised and, apparently, sigh... opportunism. Such judgments about value are reserved and made by people (moral actors) because moral behaviour, ethics, has only meaning vis-a-vis others, e.g. in the eyes of others. Unless a creative, moral actor is the cause of a thing to gain it's existence, the question of owing or deserving existence is prima facie morally irrelevant (but possibly scientifically interesting and as such valued again). The God hypothesis obviously leads to existence being owed to God, for instance, because God is a creative and moral (e.g. not morally indifferent) actor. The "basic principles" are therefore meaningless for any moral theory. The slight of hand is to suggest that a-moral facts can have bearing on moral valuation. They don't. To illustrate: The storm is an a-moral fact (it is not a moral actor or by a moral actor) of existence but the consequences are considered bad as we value the things it destroys. The diamant is highly valued not because it is intrinsically beautiful (it intrinsically reflects light in a certain way... oooh sparkly!) but because moral actors (humans) consider it so and therefore they value it.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/21/08 - 07:08 AM:	#82
cortes wrote: I don't recall in any of your posts your giving credit to the sun. But as you must be aware, your existence is contingent on the sun. Our contingencies for our physical being are indeed far reaching. But you must see that issues of personhood requires society, for the reasons stated. cortes wrote: Worthiness is another topic altogether. . Worthy: deserving (OED) cortes wrote: P2 is not incoherent. It is easily understood. It is rather simply true. Taking responsibilty for existence, whatever its virtue, does not meet the defintion of desert. By way of comparison, imagine Bill Gates explaining to Karl Marx that he deserves his wealth because he has taken responsibility for and control of it.. Neither Bill nor Karl can rescue your position. I'm not sure how you think they are relevant. cortes wrote: See P1. We all have and the contradiction is stark

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 841

Posted 05/21/08 - 07:21 AM: Subject: fact vs Belief	#83
cortes wrote: You claimed that sharing a language implied being of the same society when, in fact, there are more non-English English speakers than English English speakers. Yes, this is correct. What I was justifying was the fact that fairness takes place, irrespective of language. And again, "fairness" (in English) is only used to describe what the language users mean. More anon- This is precisely the issue. "People" is a vague term that hides a world of confusion. When Marxists get together they know exactly what each other mean by "fair". Similarly for capitalists. When the two meet they are talking at cross-purposes. Precisely - there is no concrete meaning for "fair"! (as for "hot") --BUT we can gather people together, whether they be capatalists, marxists, or Hindus: and we can get our cross consensus. I agree with you, there will be disagreements, and sometimes disagreements that are polarising: Still, even within the one group (say anarchists) we could achieve our consensus: but this is all speculation of course, and when it comes down to REAL WORLD situations - the "fairness" will have to be fought for tooth and nail...by each person. Uh, I'm referring to the fact that people make claims about fairness and justice between societies, not merely within them. I"m not referring to the word "fair" in the English language. Note that I am not arguing for that concept, merely point out to you grounding fairness in society means giving up claims of justice and fairness across societies. It means giving up the concepts of just war and the injustice of slavery. so, you would argue that slavery was fair? That would be the claim of determinists. Are we going to debate determinism again? Look, you can skirt, dodge, and weave on and on - the fact remains, yours or any other person's ability to choose X,Y,Z is DETERMINED from their experience. this is a fact, there is a difference you know.
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -Hunter S T 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:38 AM:	#84
Glypt wrote: Our contingencies for our physical being are indeed far reaching. But you must see that issues of personhood requires society, for the reasons stated. The question that you dodged is this: why did you not think it important to include those "contingencies for our physical being" in your philosophical discussions?[/quote] Glypt wrote: Neither Bill nor Karl can rescue your position. I'm not sure how you think they are relevant. I am simply pointing out that your weak attempt at offering an alternative understanding of "deserved" does not even stand up to the most cursory examination. As a rule of thumb, for purposes of your understanding, imagine that discussion between Gates and Marx on deserving wealth.
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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:52 AM:	#85
Benkei wrote: The valid conclusion, if we were to accept P1 and P2, is that we cannot have done anything to own our existence and any claims about the unfairness of the world are rhetorical embellishments which we can dismiss outright. The unfairness of the world follows logically: we exist in spite of the fact that we do not deserve to exist. Benkei wrote: Cortes is confused to think that the indifference of these things as to our existence are predominant moral facts but they are a-moral facts and as such have no bearing to the evaluation of life and the person. Where did I make any claims about "morality" in this thread? Benkei wrote: Unless a creative, moral actor is the cause of a thing to gain it's existence, the question of owing or deserving existence is prima facie morally irrelevant (but possibly scientifically interesting and as such valued again). The God hypothesis obviously leads to existence being owed to God, for instance, because God is a creative and moral (e.g. not morally indifferent) actor. Whether or not it is morally irrelevant, it is absolutely relevant to expectations. Regardless of your opinion on God, humans are not owed their existence nor do they owe for their existence. (Which is why I kept directing optrader away from his fixation on God.) Neither is the case that we owe God for our existence (other than in the trivial sense which I previously discussed). There is no outstanding debt that God is waiting to collect from us as Keda rightly understood. Benkei wrote: The slight of hand is to suggest that a-moral facts can have bearing on moral valuation. But what we can know is that each of us who exist value our own existence. If life were a burden, as some have claimed, it is one easily shed by suicide. It therefore follows that we each have something that we value but which we did not deserve.
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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/21/08 - 12:02 PM:	#86
litkey wrote: Precisely - there is no concrete meaning for "fair"! (as for "hot") --BUT we can gather people together, whether they be capatalists, marxists, or Hindus: and we can get our cross consensus. What you will end up with are statefied clusters of answers. That is not a pattern that you will see with "hot" or "red". litkey wrote: Still, even within the one group (say anarchists) we could achieve our consensus: but this is all speculation of course, and when it comes down to REAL WORLD situations - the "fairness" will have to be fought for tooth and nail...by each person. This is, though, a circulalar argument because the categories are, themselves, defined by people creating societies based on their shared beliefs on such questions as fairness. This is why it is sophmoric in the extreme to equate "people" and "society". litkey wrote: so, you would argue that slavery was fair? I would argue that if anything is incoherent it is the claim that slavery is unfair or unjust. One might argue against slavery on other grounds (e.g. compassion or economics) but to argue on the basis of justice is absurd. Slaves are (almost without exception in history) non-citizens (indeed, often considered non-persons). The most common form of enslavement was of conquered enemies. I don't know of any instances where people walked down the street to enslave neighbors in their own society. Simiarly for just war. (To claim that slavery is unjust you must construct a concept of natural law.) litkey wrote: Look, you can skirt, dodge, and weave on and on - the fact remains, yours or any other person's ability to choose X,Y,Z is DETERMINED from their experience. this is a fact, there is a difference you know. I wish I could take your word on that. Unfortuntately, I must recognize that you were determined to write those words irrespective of their truth. It's your experience that pretending to believe in determinism earns you brownie points with your friends and so you repeate it without really understanding or believing it. You are embarrassed to admit that you believe in free will. I am not.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 1850

Posted 05/21/08 - 03:29 PM:	#87

- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/21/08 - 07:09 PM:	#88
cortes wrote: I was sufficeintly precise for the purpose of my argument: fair means to get what you deserve. To deserve means to be owed for something you have done. We cannot have done anything to deserve our existence therefore we owe our existence to the unfairness of the world. What appears to be so apparent to you is not at all apparent to me and some others on this forum. Glypt tried to frame your principle into a context. He said, "The first thing to be noticed is that all of the terms, all of the concepts, all of the language; in fact the notion of argumentation itself is contingent upon, derived from, wouldn't exist without…human society. Human existence, the capacity for individual consciousness, the context whereby rational thought is possible etc etc are all defined by individual agency interacting with other agencies in society." Benkei said, "Cortes is confused to think that the indifference of these things as to our existence are predominant moral facts but they are a-moral facts and as such have no bearing to the evaluation of life and the person." Benkei summed it up quite well: "The world devoid of sentience is morally indifferent. Only sentient beings can make value judgments. We owe our existence to a grand causal chain of a universe coming into existence and evolution bringing us to the point where sexual intercourse leads to us beings being born. These are all causes that we clearly understand as being conducive to our existence but these facts in themselves are entirely morally indifferent." I have been trying to make the same point as Benkei. Existence is neither deserved or undeserved. No moral judgement is possible because we are dealing with amoral facts about existence. With your principle 1, you have leaped to a moral judgement where no moral judgement is possible.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/21/08 - 07:29 PM:	#89
optrader wrote: Glypt ...Benkei said... I won't repeat my replies to their confusion. See above. optrader wrote: I have been trying to make the same point as Benkei. Existence is neither deserved or undeserved. No moral judgement is possible because we are dealing with amoral facts about existence. With your principle 1, you have leaped to a moral judgement where no moral judgement is possible. If existence is not desrved then it is undeserved. That is what "un" means. You are arguing for a logical contradiction. Why do you assume that I am making a moral judgement? (Not that people need "society" to make moral judgements. You might want to read some Ayn Rand on that subject.)
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 05/21/08 - 11:46 PM:	#90
cortes wrote: The question that you dodged is this: why did you not think it important to include those "contingencies for our physical being" in your philosophical discussions? Glypt wrote: Our contingencies for our physical being are indeed far reaching. But you must see that issues of personhood requires society, for the reasons stated. cortes wrote: I am simply pointing out that your weak attempt at offering an alternative understanding of "deserved" does not even stand up to the most cursory examination. My understanding of deserved is both lexical and culturally informed in both academic and normative life. cortes wrote: As a rule of thumb, for purposes of your understanding, imagine that discussion between Gates and Marx on deserving wealth. I have and both of these figures would agree with me given that both depend upon the contingencies of society in supporting being human. That their response to that state of affairs differs is neither here nor there.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/22/08 - 12:12 AM:	#91
optrader wrote: cortes wrote: ...we are dealing with amoral facts about existence. Recognition of amorality, both the concept, the language used to describe the concept, and intentional state to apply the concept remains firmly contingent upon a culturally derived self-consciousness. (hence Benkei's qualifications regarding sentience). Even the notion of nothing is conceived by something by virtue of being a notional idea; this is irrefutable. So whether or not Cortes chooses to adopt an amoral position he does so as a result of being a social entity wherein thought may be articulated towards moral relationships, whether they are absent or present. Human kind are disinguished by their capacity to develop self wareness in the mirror that other individuals and 'The Other' provides. 'Our glassy essence' (pace: originally Shakespeare, and recently Rorty) reflects the world to us and reflects back our perspective to the world. This is a reflexive as well as reflective interdependency, which constitutes the nature of being a person. The latter being a necessary condition for conceiving of such mental 'objects' as morality, immorality, or amorality. Clearly a universe without sentience is ammoral from the conjecture of an adjudicating human perspective but without such or any sentience the universe just 'is'. Edited by Glypt on 05/22/08 - 12:42 AM

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 1850

Posted 05/22/08 - 12:32 AM:	#92
The unfairness of the world follows logically: we exist in spite of the fact that we do not deserve to exist. No, it doesn't follow logically. Read up on some basic logic. And as I've pointed out already a few times, the value concept of "to deserve" is non-sensical in relation to existence. You have failed to address this point. You vaguely allude to expectations. What expectations of what in relation to what? Whose expectations? Really, what are you on about? Does the natural world shape my expectations as how it works? How very interesting! Who cares? In any case you seem to have your teeth firmly fixed into this mangled frisbee of useless terminology like a Rottweiler and happily let go of logic in the process. Where did I make any claims about "morality" in this thread? You continually make moral value judgments (morality in action) about life, personhood, existence and the world. The first two being based on a mostly problematic worldview. I understand this little Conquistadorianism is your little baby but it is sadly stillborn. Also, your use of "deserve" is not in line with common usage. You would have us agree that "it was undeserved for the apple to fall" is a normal sentence. It isn't. Undeserved is not the negation of deserving but an entirely negative concept - it is the unjust or unfair appropriation of a thing and deserved is the just and fair appropriation of a thing. Undeserved is therefore not "not deserved" as that is the simple absence of a merited appropriation. So either rephrase your ill-chosen terms and it might start making some sense (but I doubt it, Rottweiler). In your line of reasoning unfair would not be a negative concept but "just" the absence of fairness. That's a play with semantics that we all refuse to accept and optrader therefore has most certainly not been arguing a logical contradiction. Whether or not it is morally irrelevant, it is absolutely relevant to expectations. Regardless of your opinion on God, humans are not owed their existence nor do they owe for their existence. (Which is why I kept directing optrader away from his fixation on God.) Neither is the case that we owe God for our existence (other than in the trivial sense which I previously discussed). There is no outstanding debt that God is waiting to collect from us as Keda rightly understood. God was not indifferent to creation "and lo, behold, he saw it was good". As such he has a will subject to judgment, as all sentient beings have, which makes his actions moral. We can owe existence to a God because of this but you missed the point so I don't care to explain that further. I will repeat the point: the question of owing or deserving existence is prima facie morally irrelevant. But what we can know is that each of us who exist value our own existence. If life were a burden, as some have claimed, it is one easily shed by suicide. A regular moral value judgment made by sentient beings. It therefore follows that we each have something that we value but which we did not deserve. There is no morally relevant point to this and you cannot derive any moral value judgments from the apparent separation (which I think nobody here would deny) between coming into existence and the moral value judgments we make about life and personhood, precisely because they are separated. In summary: Life is neither deserved nor undeserved and you need to learn some English. Why do you assume that I am making a moral judgement? (Not that people need "society" to make moral judgements. You might want to read some Ayn Rand on that subject.) Why don't you explain it and I get to dump all over Rand again? Sounds like fun to me. Waste of my time but fun.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 841

Posted 05/22/08 - 02:06 AM:	#93
cortes wrote: What you will end up with are statefied clusters of answers. That is not a pattern that you will see with "hot" or "red". What glue is it this week? Can I get some?? It might be a little "sophomoric" (there is an O in sophOmore by the way) but it is fun (to bring in Benkei's thought). What would it mean to say something is "hot" - "This plate is hot." Now, appart from someone burning their fingers and spilling the soup all over someone's crotch, we can agree that we 'UNDERSTAND' what this utterance forbears. As a rider to this fact, we can also say, even if someone didn't speak English and was holding the HOT plate - we would still know what the person was meaning ie. The Plate is Hot. Now, imagine the same restaurant, but this time the waiter walks over to someone and instead of saying "this plate is Hot" he pours the soup down a lady's brassier; now despite my warped example (Who knows what Freud might say!) we can say it would be a little on the ABSURD front to say: "That was fair." - People would look confused, bemused, and any other word that rhymes...Abused? - The point being: "This wasn't fair." or "why was that fair?" We might even speculate that the woman poured hot apple sauce down the man's pants the night before, causing one of his testacles to be burned...then: "that was fair." Comes out in a differing light altogether. What we might agree as "true" will be predicated on events, on "happenings", and on LANGUAGE. SO, IF Cortes has a specific meaning and usage for "fairness", and his friends have another meaning for "fairness" - then they will certainly be speaking about different things. But- i) They will be in a shared linguistic community, and because of this specific meanings mean shit. ii) if there is a disagreement (conceptually speaking) they will discuss the "word" and hopefully reach CONSENSUS. iia) IF consensus isn't reached then: a) A new word will be invented: FLAIRNESS b) Someone might be retarded. This is why it is sophmoric in the extreme to equate "people" and "society". I think the word is SophOmoric. I would argue that if anything is incoherent it is the claim that slavery is unfair or unjust. One might argue against slavery on other grounds (e.g. compassion or economics) but to argue on the basis of justice is absurd. Slaves are (almost without exception in history) non-citizens (indeed, often considered non-persons). The most common form of enslavement was of conquered enemies. I don't know of any instances where people walked down the street to enslave neighbors in their own society. Simiarly for just war. (To claim that slavery is unjust you must construct a concept of natural law.) Yes Indeed, back to the Natural Law. ahh..why not? Well, we all share the same Universe- and i'm sure your neighbours aren't too different from you, they most likely have some whackey ideas too; irrespective of that, they wouldn't feel too happy about being enslaved. Right? Human Nature is in the mind, or the brain, and our constructed behaviour is predicated on this Human Nature. If anything illustrates our hatred for slavery it is our History. I wish I could take your word on that. Unfortuntately, I must recognize that you were determined to write those words irrespective of their truth. It's your experience that pretending to believe in determinism earns you brownie points with your friends and so you repeate it without really understanding or believing it. You are embarrassed to admit that you believe in free will. I am not. +) Events happen all the time. +) There is always a reason for why something happens. +) We explain behaviour by predicating reference. I agree that I don't fully understand, but i'm certain that determinism has its role to play - Do you think the woman poured the soup on the man's crotch for no reason?
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -Hunter S T 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/22/08 - 05:28 AM:	#94
Glypt wrote: My understanding of deserved is both lexical and culturally informed in both academic and normative life. cortes wrote: As a rule of thumb, for purposes of your understanding, imagine that discussion between Gates and Marx on deserving wealth. I have and both of these figures would agree with me given that both depend upon the contingencies of society in supporting being human. Where does gravity fit in, though? You're not going to try to tell me that your understanding of deserved is not contingent on graviy are you? Glypt wrote: That their response to that state of affairs differs is neither here nor there. Here is where it is. If you are going to propose an alternative meaning of "deserve" to the one I noted above then it should at least choose one that fits the expectations of socialists when they use the word in questioning the fairness of the distribution of wealth. (See coolazice above.)
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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/22/08 - 05:48 AM:	#95
Benkei wrote: And as I've pointed out already a few times, the value concept of "to deserve" is non-sensical in relation to existence. It is perfectly sensible. You just don't want to think about it because you fear the implications. Benkei wrote: You have failed to address this point. You vaguely allude to expectations. What expectations of what in relation to what? Whose expectations? What is the entire point of this discussion? It is to form an opinion of the world that informs expectations in order that we might better navigate it. That is Philosophy 101.The question before us is whether believing that people don't deserve to exist is an informative belief. If we belive it to be true then we have one set of expectations about the world. If we beleive it not to be true then we have a different set of expectations. Benkei wrote: Also, your use of "deserve" is not in line with common usage. You would have us agree that "it was undeserved for the apple to fall" is a normal sentence. That is not the common usage of the word. Benkei wrote: Undeserved is not the negation of deserving but an entirely negative concept - it is the unjust or unfair appropriation of a thing and deserved is the just and fair appropriation of a thing. Undeserved is therefore not "not deserved" as that is the simple absence of a merited appropriation. That is correct!!! As I pointed out several times to optrader, both of the first two principles are general negative statements. Where did you get appropriation from? Otherwise you have given us a true but circular description of these words so it's not as informative as we would prefer. Benkei wrote: In your line of reasoning unfair would not be a negative concept but "just" the absence of fairness. Nope, unfairness is not fair. People get stuff they don't deserve, that's not fair. Benkei wrote: God was not indifferent to creation "and lo, behold, he saw it was good". As such he has a will subject to judgment, as all sentient beings have, which makes his actions moral. We can owe existence to a God because of this but you missed the point so I don't care to explain that further. I will repeat the point: the question of owing or deserving existence is prima facie morally irrelevant. No, you are using "owe" here in exactly the trivial sense that I noted above. If I say "you owe your existence to the fact that there was a power outage and your parents copulated like rabbits" that would not imply a debt by you to them. We are using "owe" here in the sense of a debt to be repaid. There is no such debt to God. People who live longer do not owe more to God than people who die in childbirth. Life is a gift from God. Benkei wrote: cortes wrote: It therefore follows that we each have something that we value but which we did not deserve. There is no morally relevant point to this and you cannot derive any moral value judgments from the apparent separation (which I think nobody here would deny) between coming into existence and the moral value judgments we make about life and personhood, precisely because they are separated. Why are you not content to let the statement stand on its own two feet? It means what it says. You are erecting a strawman argument around it. If you see no point to it then that is your own blindness. But let's first acknowledge the truth of it. Benkei wrote: Why don't you explain it and I get to dump all over Rand again? Sounds like fun to me. Waste of my time but fun. Quite simply that morality is a guide to survival and flourishing; a moral choice is one that improves my chances of surviving and flourishing. Edited by cortes on 05/22/08 - 06:02 AM
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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/22/08 - 05:58 AM:	#96
litkey wrote: What would it mean to say something is "hot"... Yawn. My point was simply that "hot" and "fair" do not exhibit the same patterns of usage. People form radically different, often diametrically opposite, opinions about fair. That doesn't happen with "hot". litkey wrote: Yes Indeed, back to the Natural Law. ahh..why not? Well, we all share the same Universe- and i'm sure your neighbours aren't too different from you, they most likely have some whackey ideas too; irrespective of that, they wouldn't feel too happy about being enslaved. Right? Shall we incorporate our previous discussion on natural rights here by reference? litkey wrote: Human Nature is in the mind, or the brain, and our constructed behaviour is predicated on this Human Nature. If anything illustrates our hatred for slavery it is our History. The period of human history in which slavery has been "hated" is negligable compared to the period in which it was considered Natural Law for one people to enslave another. litkey wrote: +) There is always a reason for why something happens. The genuine randomness of a coinflip is enough to negate this claim. Determinism cannot stand up to the possibility of indeterminism, never mind free will. litkey wrote: I agree that I don't fully understand, but i'm certain that determinism has its role to play - Do you think the woman poured the soup on the man's crotch for no reason? I'm all for seeking a better understanding of the world. I just don't assume that determinism is true, particularly where my own choices are concerned. As I noted previously, I choose to believe in free will. Either I am correct or I am unable to make that choice. But I cannot be making an incorrect choice. Edited by cortes on 05/22/08 - 06:07 AM
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 05/22/08 - 06:19 AM:	#97
cortes wrote: Where does gravity fit in, though? You're not going to try to tell me that your understanding of deserved is not contingent on graviy are you? >>> Glypt wrote: My understanding of deserved is both lexical and culturally informed in both academic and normative life...Our contingencies for our physical being are indeed far reaching. But you must see that issues of personhood requires society, for the reasons stated. cortes wrote: … an alternative meaning of "deserve"… should...[fit]...the expectations of socialists. ?

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 1850

Posted 05/22/08 - 07:05 AM:	#98
I only have time for one statement, so here goes: No, you are using "owe" here in exactly the trivial sense that I noted above. If I say "you owe your existence to the fact that there was a power outage and your parents copulated like rabbits" that would not imply a debt by you to them. We are using "owe" here in the sense of a debt to be repaid. There is no such debt to God. People who live longer do not owe more to God than people who die in childbirth. Life is a gift from God. Possibility 1: God does not exist, in which case existence is entirely indifferent to creating your life (regardless of the causal events leading to it) and therefore the word gift (value judgment) in relation to your life is non-sensical as the events leading up to it are a-moral as we lack a "gift-giver", e.g. a moral actor than can act with the notion of "gift". You are simply interpreting facts in an entirely anthropomorphic way where this is unnecessary. It's verbal imagery that apparently confuses you more than it does me, since you're still running around chasing your tail and basically repeating yourself without dealing with the points raised. Possibility 2: God does exist, in which case life is a gift (as given with purpose by the Creator) and we owe life to him, which does not necessarily mean we are indebted (the two are unrelated but you like to conflate them but I for one never give a gift and expect something in return). Furthermore, in this case the use of deserved and undeserved in relation to your life is still non-sensical because of the impossibility to act in any way to bring your own existence about. Speaking of the just or unjust appropriation, e.g. the getting/receiving of, life is therefore really bad use of language. That is not the common usage of the word. Neither is "life is undeserved" or "existence is unfair", which was the point. Although plenty of pseudophilosophers think it makes sense. It is perfectly sensible. You just don't want to think about it because you fear the implications. I've quite clearly demonstrated that I understand what you're getting at, I also have shown WHY it is non-sensical to ascribe intrinsic moral values to things that are a-moral. But yes I fear the big mean individualist that is going to take every opportunity to demonstrate he is entirely dogmatic about his stillborn baby Conquisty. (is it a boy or a girl by the way?) Quite simply that morality is a guide to survival and flourishing; a moral choice is one that improves my chances of surviving and flourishing. Making a choice between drinking horse piss and whiskey is a moral choice too just not necessarily the right moral choice or a relevant one at that. Your summary is so devoid of content that it is once again impossible to reply to it substantively.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/22/08 - 07:17 AM:	#99
Benkei wrote: Possibility 1: God does not exist, in which case existence is entirely indifferent to creating your life (regardless of the causal events leading to it) and therefore the word gift (value judgment) in relation to your life is non-sensical as the events leading up to it are a-moral as we lack a "gift-giver", e.g. a moral actor than can act with the notion of "gift". As I explained to optrader, "gift" does not rely on a valuation by the giver but by the receiver. We have already established that people value their own existence. Benkei wrote: You are simply interpreting facts in an entirely anthropomorphic way where this is unnecessary. It's verbal imagery that apparently confuses you more than it does me, since you're still running around chasing your tail and basically repeating yourself without dealing with the points raised. I am using metaphors, yes. Benkei wrote: Possibility 2: God does exist, in which case life is a gift (as given with purpose by the Creator) and we owe life to him, which does not necessarily mean we are indebted (the two are unrelated but you like to conflate them but I for one never give a gift and expect something in return). For purposes of our discussion here, we are not concerned in the least with the first part ("we owe life to him") but only with the second part (not "indebted"). I have not conflated the two. I have explained this point whenever the confusion arose. Benkei wrote: Furthermore, in this case the use of deserved and undeserved in relation to your life is still non-sensical because of the impossibility to act in any way to bring your own existence about. Speaking of the just or unjust appropriation, e.g. the getting/receiving of, life is therefore really bad use of language. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Sensibility is not restricted to truth. The space of sensible sentences is far greater than the space of true sentences. Benkei wrote: Your summary is so devoid of content that it is once again impossible to reply to it substantively. It is sufficient to demonstrate my point that I do not need to appeal to "soceity" in order to make moral judgements.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 05/22/08 - 07:28 AM:	#100
cortes wrote: Quite simply that morality is a guide to survival and flourishing; a moral choice is one that improves my chances of surviving and flourishing. It strikes me that morality is a social construct, with the function of promoting the continuance of the group, not necessarily with promoting the continuance of any given individual. In fact most moralities allow for and even encourage personal sacrifice even of one's life for the continuance (survival) of others. (This is even the central issue of Christian belief in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and its use as the greatest model of love.) Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.