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 11 12 13 14 15 Last

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/13/08 - 06:01 AM:	#41
litkey wrote: This is all rather borish, and I think you have said the same thing in another post. We exist, so what? To say " I do deserve to exist" or the converse is to really say nothing - Existence is not predicated on purpose. <- - - That being a fact, what does that say about your philosophy? ....Let me spell it again... D ...E...T...E...R...M...I...N...I...S...M... Ah, but I am not saying merely that we exist. I am saying we do not deserve to exist and that, therfore, our existence depends on the universe being unfair. What that implies is that those like Rawls who organize their philosophy around making the world more just are enemies of human existence. Beyond that, I explore the implications of these points in "Covenant Theory". http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/covenant-theory-30085.html BTW, I decided to add a third point to my fundamental principles: 3) We are solely responsible for our lives. Even more than the second point, this is axiomatic though it is certainly consistent with the first two points and the nature of human existence. Few things better distinguish the successful from the unsuccessful as the willingness to take responsibility for one's life (as opposed to living life as a victim relying on Rawlsian justice).
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 883

Posted 05/13/08 - 07:12 AM:	#42
Cortes, cortes wrote: Ah, but I am not saying merely that we exist. I am saying we do not deserve to exist and that, therfore, our existence depends on the universe being unfair. At first glance your design seems to be the converse of Rawlsian theory; in so far as you agree that the world is neither "fair" nor "unfair" - Rawls would accept this, although brings human thought into the question: Fairness. "fairness" comes from us, or what we think "fairness" is - you seem to be creating a wide gulf out of this dichotomy- "the universe" and "human thought" - and I don't really know what to think about that at this stage. What that implies is that those like Rawls who organize their philosophy around making the world more just are enemies of human existence. Ok, we could perhaps stretch the above to apply to some socialist thinkers, and communists (although, be aware communism is close to anarchism: less/no government...freedom/Liberty) but not to Rawls. An enemy to human existence is someone who is holding a gun to your head. 3) We are solely responsible for our lives. what does this mean? What does it really* mean? - If a person is shot in Baghdad, shipped back to the states, given no welfare, and told to "hit the street!" - Is this person responsible for their life? - A mother is ditched by husband, with children, he has all the money, and she is left in the shit - Is she responsible? -A child is brought up by heroin dealers and drunks - is (s)he responsible? - A person has a wealthy family, status, is born in a prosperous town, and has benefits that many do not have - is this person responsible? The question of "responsibility" is a tricky one to say the least. And I also think a Dangerous concept. (Think Ayn Rand). Why so Mike?? Well, I have met some yuppies (fortunately not too many) in California and there is a prevelent belief that people are lazy, no good, and that people should take "responsibility" for their lives- often there is anger/hatred at those who aren't wealthy and yuppies like them - but they forget one simple thing- the contingency factor: wealth, family status, nationality.......and birth.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/13/08 - 07:55 AM:	#43
litkey wrote: At first glance your design seems to be the converse of Rawlsian theory; in so far as you agree that the world is neither "fair" nor "unfair" - Rawls would accept this, although brings human thought into the question: Fairness. "fairness" comes from us, or what we think "fairness" is - you seem to be creating a wide gulf out of this dichotomy- "the universe" and "human thought" - and I don't really know what to think about that at this stage. . Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. Incidently, we see the same sort of thing happening at the national level with Israel. There are many people who question Israel's right to exist and demand that Israel justify its existence. It is not an academic question. And there is but one proper answer. (You seem to have changed your position quite a bit since our previous discussions. If, for example, "fairness comes from us" then isn't my definition of fairness (a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god) as good as any (certainly better than Rawls fantasy)?) litkey wrote: Ok, we could perhaps stretch the above to apply to some socialist thinkers, and communists (although, be aware communism is close to anarchism: less/no government...freedom/Liberty) but not to Rawls. An enemy to human existence is someone who is holding a gun to your head. Which of course depends on what is done with the Rawlsian concept of justice. As I noted very early on in my previous discussion, we are fortunate that no politician has embraced the concept of Rawsian justice but given the Swiss implementation of vegetable rights nothing would surprise me anymore. litkey wrote: what does this mean? What does it really* mean? - If a person is shot in Baghdad, shipped back to the states, given no welfare, and told to "hit the street!" - Is this person responsible for their life? - A mother is ditched by husband, with children, he has all the money, and she is left in the shit - Is she responsible? -A child is brought up by heroin dealers and drunks - is (s)he responsible? - A person has a wealthy family, status, is born in a prosperous town, and has benefits that many do not have - is this person responsible? Yes on all counts. Irrespective of circumstances, a responsible person looks to themselves first to make changes in their life and to others only instrumentally. Think of it this way: if you have a problem to solve it would be really great if someone solved it for you. But relying on others to solve your problems is a ticket to failure. Taking responsibility is not a statement of past causation but of making choices toward future outcomes. It means not accepting determinism and fate but creating your own future.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 150

Posted 05/13/08 - 06:37 PM:	#44
cortes wrote: But my claim does not rest on identifying any giver or cause because deserve is a quality associated with the receiver, not the giver. You are talking about a 'receiver'. If there is a 'receiver', there has to be a 'giver'. The problem I have with your idea is that you have not informed me as to whom this 'giver' is. That is what makes your statement, and this whole concept of life as a gift, to be illogical. You want everyone to accept the idea that life is a 'gift'. But, who is giving this 'gift'? Who is giving life? Your entire premises are illogical. If you say that we are just born and life and let that be it, then you don't have to introduce a 'giver' or a 'receiver'. But, you are trying to call being born and living a 'gift'. But, this is a completely illogical statement. A person or an animal has no control over being born. They are simply alive. No one gave them that life. cortes wrote: But chasing red herrings like "who is the giver" when "deserve" is a property of the receiver only distracts. Deserve may be a property of a 'receiver', but man and living things are not 'receivers'! cortes wrote: "Gift" is a metaphor designed to communicate a concept. You are, in effect, complaining that it cannot be a gift because it does not have a ribbon on top. The more precise claim that I made was that "we do not deserve to exist" or even more precisely, "we could not have done anything to deserve our existence." By any concept of "deserve" that requires doing something our existence is undeserved. Doing something or not doing something is completely irrelevant to existence. We simply exist. You have jumped to a conclusion that 'we do not deserve to exist'. But, that is a leap in judgement by you and you are judging life and existence. But, who made you the judge of all? You want us all to believe this same judgement. But, such a judgement is a personal matter, and few people will agree on such matters. cortes wrote: In any case, maybe we should just agree to disagree on this point for the time being and explore Covenant Theory. I have already read your Covenant Theory. But, I cannot get into it because I cannot get past the premises on which it is based. You will have to build a better case for your premises. As they stand now, they are illogical. cortes wrote: Ah, but I am not saying merely that we exist. I am saying we do not deserve to exist and that, therefore, our existence depends on the universe being unfair. But, where do you arrive at the idea that the universe is 'unfair'? If you believe this, then you believe the universe is some kind of 'entity' that can think and make judgements. But, if the universe is merely a mechanism, something much like a machine, then it does not think nor make judgements and you cannot say it is fair or unfair. cortes wrote: 3) We are solely responsible for our lives. I agree with litkey that this statement is not completely true. There are many circumstances where a person has little control over his life and in those situations it is difficult to place the sole responsibility on them. cortes wrote: Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. First, I would not reply to the individual, except to tell him to 'get lost'. Second, I don't owe and explanation to anyone for my existence. Third, no one can tell me that I deserve or don't deserve to exist. In a society, each person has the 'right' to exist, until they kill someone else, and then society may take that right from them. As far as the universe is concerned, there is no 'right' to exist. We simply exist. cortes wrote: Incidentally, we see the same sort of thing happening at the national level with Israel. There are many people who question Israel's right to exist and demand that Israel justify its existence. It is not an academic question. Israel is a sovereign country and it does not have to justify its existence to any other country. The universe is not going to cry out for Israel to justify its existence. It is on the the countries and people that don't like Israel and its people.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/13/08 - 09:02 PM:	#45
optrader wrote: You are talking about a 'receiver'. If there is a 'receiver', there has to be a 'giver'. The problem I have with your idea is that you have not informed me as to whom this 'giver' is. Because the argument does not depend on identifying the giver. Let it be nature, God, or "society" as you prefer. optrader wrote: Deserve may be a property of a 'receiver', but man and living things are not 'receivers'! That makes no sense. I receive things all the time. optrader wrote: Doing something or not doing something is completely irrelevant to existence. We simply exist. You have jumped to a conclusion that 'we do not deserve to exist'. But, that is a leap in judgement by you and you are judging life and existence. But, who made you the judge of all? You want us all to believe this same judgement. But, such a judgement is a personal matter, and few people will agree on such matters. It's a judgement formed from the facts. optrader wrote: But, where do you arrive at the idea that the universe is 'unfair'? If you believe this, then you believe the universe is some kind of 'entity' that can think and make judgements. But, if the universe is merely a mechanism, something much like a machine, then it does not think nor make judgements and you cannot say it is fair or unfair. The phrase "life is unfair" simply means that people don't (necessarily) get what they deserve. optrader wrote: I agree with litkey that this statement is not completely true. There are many circumstances where a person has little control over his life and in those situations it is difficult to place the sole responsibility on them. Keep in mind that this third point is, like the second, an axiom. It is a position taken for a purpose though it is certainly not inconsistent with any facts. (Note my explanation that it is oriented on choice and future goals, not an explanation of past events and causations.) optrader wrote: cortes wrote: Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. First, I would not reply to the individual, except to tell him to 'get lost'. Second, I don't owe and explanation to anyone for my existence. That is, in fact, the correct answer. (I was hoping to make litkey rub his brain cells together.) optrader wrote: Israel is a sovereign country and it does not have to justify its existence to any other country. The universe is not going to cry out for Israel to justify its existence. It is on the the countries and people that don't like Israel and its people. Ditto.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 150

Posted 05/14/08 - 03:47 PM:	#46
cortes wrote: "Because the argument does not depend on identifying the giver." Let it be nature, God, or "society" as you prefer. Ahhhh...but you must identify the giver! Your postulate that we do not deserve to exist requires you to identify the source of our existence. Can you say that we 'owe' our existence to nature? What about to God? What about to society? I can easily refute your claim. I don't 'owe' my existence to nature. I was simply born; I had no control over it. I cannot say that I owe my existence to God because I cannot prove there is a God. I cannot say that I owe my existence to society, because I was just born into society. I had no say in the fact of my existence. To make your claims, you will have to identify this giver. cortes wrote: That makes no sense. I receive things all the time. If you receive things all the time, then 'what' or 'whom' gives you those things? You cannot just receive things without a giving source. You might make a blanket statement that says that 'life gives me all sorts of gifts'. But, this is not a statement that can stand up to scrutiny. First, there is no thing or entity called life that is giving you anything. You are really saying that you have an emotion of joy most of the time. cortes wrote: The phrase "life is unfair" simply means that people don't (necessarily) get what they deserve. Here you go again! Where do you get the idea that people 'deserve' things? To whom should they be receiving things? Are you saying that 'nature' is unfair and people deserve more from nature? If so, then you must think nature is a conscious thinking being and makes judgements. If life is unfair, then to what are you making your comparison? Such a statement must invoke a comparison. Then, you will have to invoke a creator of life so that you can tell this creator that his creation is not fair as compared to other life elsewhere in the universe. cortes wrote: Keep in mind that this third point is, like the second, an axiom. It is a position taken for a purpose though it is certainly not inconsistent with any facts. (Note my explanation that it is oriented on choice and future goals, not an explanation of past events and causations.) I believe your third axiom is incomplete. You will have to provide a context for it, because there are situations in life where a person is not solely responsible for their lives. Victor Frankl was in Auschwitz. He had no control over what happened to him. He was completely controlled by others. We seem to agree that a person or a country does not have to justify their existence to anyone. If you will note, I did not just say that a person does not have to justify their existence. I said that a person does not have to justify their existence to anyone else. In other words, I identified both entities in my statement. The problem that arises with your axioms is that you do not identify the two entities to whom you are speaking. Just because people say that 'life is unfair', does not mean that you can take this a philosophical axiom, because the statement is incomplete and vague. The statement implies that life is a 'thing' and that this thing is unfair to them. It makes the assumption that this thing life is fair to some other people, but is not fair to them. In other words, they compare their life to others lives and they don't like the comparison. They may see other people with riches and they are poor. Maybe they were born with physical disabilities. In any event, they are acting like life is a 'thing' or a kind of 'entity' that 'gives'. But, life is like existence, it just 'is'. It is not conscious, not creating, not thinking, nor judging. Now, you could begin your axiom by saying that some people look around and compare their life with others and they are not satisfied and they desire to own things like other people. You could say that they 'feel' they 'deserve' to have the things like other people have. You could say they 'feel' they 'deserve' to be happy. But, you still have to explain who it is that 'owes' them something. If they 'deserve', then they are essentially saying that something 'owes' them. You could say that these people feel that 'society' 'owes' them 'things'. Does this make sense? Are we beginning to get on the same page?

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/14/08 - 04:53 PM:	#47
optrader wrote: Ahhhh...but you must identify the giver! Your postulate that we do not deserve to exist requires you to identify the source of our existence. Why is that? You have repeatedly claimed this without justifying it. My claim is that existence is undeserved. That claim does not depend on the source of existence anymore than it depends on the color of the sky. optrader wrote: Can you say that we 'owe' our existence to nature? What about to God? What about to society? I can easily refute your claim. I don't 'owe' my existence to nature. I was simply born; I had no control over it. I cannot say that I owe my existence to God because I cannot prove there is a God. I cannot say that I owe my existence to society, because I was just born into society. I had no say in the fact of my existence. To make your claims, you will have to identify this giver. The fact that you had no control over your birth is the sufficient fact. We could examine each and every proposed source of your existence and it would not alter that fact. In logic we would say For all (X) where X is the source of your existence. Since your lack of control is not a function of the source of your existence it does not depend on it and therefore the soruce can be ignored. optrader wrote: If you receive things all the time, then 'what' or 'whom' gives you those things? You cannot just receive things without a giving source. Sure I can. I could receive a package in the mail with no return address. optrader wrote: Here you go again! Where do you get the idea that people 'deserve' things? Well, I am refuting that claim but the claim is made as we discussed before. optrader wrote: I believe your third axiom is incomplete. You will have to provide a context for it, because there are situations in life where a person is not solely responsible for their lives. Victor Frankl was in Auschwitz. He had no control over what happened to him. He was completely controlled by others. Actually, there are several Holocaust survivors who claim that one of the determinants of who lived and who died was their attitude toward their situation and what they did to survive as opposed to giving up in despair. Even in a death camp, the principle applies. optrader wrote: Just because people say that 'life is unfair', does not mean that you can take this a philosophical axiom, because the statement is incomplete and vague. I'm only mentioning the phrase to point out that people understand the concept, however incomplete and vague it may be. There is always room for more precision but not ever ambiguity is worth resolving. optrader wrote: But, life is like existence, it just 'is'. It is not conscious, not creating, not thinking, nor judging. If I observed that two trees are not equal in height I would not be implying any cosiousness to them or to the forest. The phrase "life is not fair" is, in the simplest form, such an observation. Now some like me use the phrase to mean, "forget about it", while others use it as a basis of complaint. optrader wrote: You could say that they 'feel' they 'deserve' to have the things like other people have. You could say they 'feel' they 'deserve' to be happy. But, you still have to explain who it is that 'owes' them something. If they 'deserve', then they are essentially saying that something 'owes' them. You could say that these people feel that 'society' 'owes' them 'things'. Does this make sense? Are we beginning to get on the same page? And, in fact, this is what people who take the opposite position tend to do. Most commonly, such people tend to identify "society" as the entity that owes them, and through it, the productive. But since I am refuting such claims, I don't see any point in identifying the sources. I am disclaiming them all categorically.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 883

Posted 05/15/08 - 02:36 AM:	#48
cortes wrote: Think of it simply this way: suppose someone showed up at your door and explained that he was there to make sure everyone got exactly what they deserved and then demanded that you justify your existence. How would you answer? To say that your existence is "neither fair nor unfair" would be to fail the test of justifying your existence. You are taking it away from the meta-ethical front, and focusing on a "real world" situation - Think of Napoleon on the battle field, he watches his troops, and thinks in terms of "who -deserves-what?" - Meritocracy is a fact, and a fact in the real world. you should think in terms of existence neither predicating fairness or unfairness - these are "human" concepts (but, this does not mean they are "seperate" from the "universe" -- Incidentally, this is where we differ greatly: I do not want to seperate myself/my concepts from the "Universe", as I view myself as part of the whole) and they are concepts that are used often in our waking world. Incidently, we see the same sort of thing happening at the national level with Israel. There are many people who question Israel's right to exist and demand that Israel justify its existence. It is not an academic question. Well, this could be argued on the meta-physical ground "god given land." etc., or someone might say "we fought for this land." or someone might say "we suffered greatly." Arguments can be made, but they may not rest on the same land. (You seem to have changed your position quite a bit since our previous discussions. If, for example, "fairness comes from us" then isn't my definition of fairness (a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god) as good as any (certainly better than Rawls fantasy)?) Even you yourself would find your neighbour ridiculous if he came over and said "I am a living God." Which of course depends on what is done with the Rawlsian concept of justice. As I noted very early on in my previous discussion, we are fortunate that no politician has embraced the concept of Rawsian justice but given the Swiss implementation of vegetable rights nothing would surprise me anymore. Look, I never descended into Rawlsian economic philosophy, well, not in great depth - what I did touch upon was his "Contingency theory" - we are all born into Circumstace...WE DO NOT MAKE THE CIRCUMSTANCE. Do you understand the contingency point? Yes on all counts. Irrespective of circumstances, a responsible person looks to themselves first to make changes in their life and to others only instrumentally. Think of it this way: if you have a problem to solve it would be really great if someone solved it for you. But relying on others to solve your problems is a ticket to failure. Taking responsibility is not a statement of past causation but of making choices toward future outcomes. It means not accepting determinism and fate but creating your own future. Well, here is where we disagree. You fail to see "responsibility" as a DANGEROUS concept. It implies that a person who is brought up with abusive alcoholic parents are the sole cause of their present circumstance(s). Quite frankly I see you as being utterly wrong here, and stubborn too - on not even entertaining the concept of "determinism" /// "Contingency."
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/15/08 - 06:10 AM:	#49
litkey wrote: You are taking it away from the meta-ethical front, and focusing on a "real world" situation - Think of Napoleon on the battle field, he watches his troops, and thinks in terms of "who -deserves-what?" - Meritocracy is a fact, and a fact in the real world. you should think in terms of existence neither predicating fairness or unfairness - these are "human" concepts (but, this does not mean they are "seperate" from the "universe" -- Incidentally, this is where we differ greatly: I do not want to seperate myself/my concepts from the "Universe", as I view myself as part of the whole) and they are concepts that are used often in our waking world. The purpose of the scenario was to illustrate the pointlessness of justifying existence. But as I pointed out before, it is a plain fact that there are many who believe, and you have made arguments yourself to the effect, that people deserve one thing or another by virtue of taking up space and sucking air. If you want to place the concept of fairness within a social context then that's really a question for the next part (Coveneant Theory). What you will find there is that social constructions must be constructed socially. Note, however, that at this point we are dealing with a human: the born individual. This individual is perfectly capable of demanding what's "due" him even if he doesn't know from whom to demand it. litkey wrote: Even you yourself would find your neighbour ridiculous if he came over and said "I am a living God." Well, of course, that's ridiculous. Only I am a living god. litkey wrote: Look, I never descended into Rawlsian economic philosophy, well, not in great depth - what I did touch upon was his "Contingency theory" - we are all born into Circumstace...WE DO NOT MAKE THE CIRCUMSTANCE. Do you understand the contingency point? That was never our disagreement. Our disagreement was over the contingent nature of the future and the supposed value of fairness. What I have shown here is that not merely is the world unfair, as Rawls et alia correctly say, but that our very existence is unfair, that we value our existence, and thus that there is value in unfairness. (I could argue further for unfairness in other ways but that is sufficient to make my point.) That's why we tell anyone asking us to justify our existence to fuck off. litkey wrote: Well, here is where we disagree. You fail to see "responsibility" as a DANGEROUS concept. It implies that a person who is brought up with abusive alcoholic parents are the sole cause of their present circumstance(s). Quite frankly I see you as being utterly wrong here, and stubborn too - on not even entertaining the concept of "determinism" /// "Contingency." No, I explicitly rejected this version of responsibility. I said before quite clearly that it was not about past causation but on chioces about future outcomes. It doesn't matter whether this person's present circumstances are caused by the alcoholic parents or whether those are just coincidental. In this context, what the third point means, is that there is no value in wallowing in self pity and victimhood. Taking responsibility means taking the present circumstances and making something of them without waiting for others to undo the effects of the alcoholic parents.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 883

Posted 05/15/08 - 07:24 AM:	#50
cortes wrote: But as I pointed out before, it is a plain fact that there are many who believe, and you have made arguments yourself to the effect, that people deserve one thing or another by virtue of taking up space and sucking air. If you want to place the concept of fairness within a social context then that's really a question for the next part (Coveneant Theory). What you will find there is that social constructions must be constructed socially. Note, however, that at this point we are dealing with a human: the born individual. This individual is perfectly capable of demanding what's "due" him even if he doesn't know from whom to demand it. You must have been drinking last night, your writing and ideas seem quite flaccid and pointless. Existence is not established on anything- and your ideas of "desert" was to bring it into the social world: recall the door step scenario? Irrespective of what I would say, each person will apply "desert" to their own hardwork, to their powers, some might even say they recall working hard to infiltrate the egg. Right? You are throwing the baby out of the basket - what about a person's context? Say the abused child that makes millions of pounds, i'm certain they will say they owe their money to hardwork, and infact, the person would probably point to the "terrible" background as the precursor to making a fortune. It's a truism that security and family wealth isn't good for the kids. Well, of course, that's ridiculous. Only I am a living god. Ridiculous! That was never our disagreement. Our disagreement was over the contingent nature of the future and the supposed value of fairness. Indeed it was, you think the idea of contingency is rubbish, and you place your chips down with hardwork, self-powers, and "responsibility" - you ignore the fact that people are born in ill-luck. (aside: this may not be a bad thing). Surely you cannot deny you were born into X situation? Some philosophers agree, that even the acknowledgement of this, ought to make us humble, and less prone to attack people on "hard times." but, the world takes all sorts I suppose. What I have shown here is that not merely is the world unfair, as Rawls et alia correctly say, but that our very existence is unfair, that we value our existence, and thus that there is value in unfairness. (I could argue further for unfairness in other ways but that is sufficient to make my point.) That's why we tell anyone asking us to justify our existence to fuck off. No,no, no...Rawls never said anything of the sort. He is looking at social, economical, and political issues and problems from the human vantage point - we have ideas on how best to design the community, and what he says is that, if we understand people are born rich, or people are born poor, then we should maybe do something to make it fair. Also- he tries to convey the dark side- If we do not understand the contingency, then others will understand it for us. No, I explicitly rejected this version of responsibility. I said before quite clearly that it was not about past causation but on chioces about future outcomes. It doesn't matter whether this person's present circumstances are caused by the alcoholic parents or whether those are just coincidental. In this context, what the third point means, is that there is no value in wallowing in self pity and victimhood. Taking responsibility means taking the present circumstances and making something of them without waiting for others to undo the effects of the alcoholic parents. This reads like a self-help book. have you written for that genre?? Sure, but someone's present circumstances are different from another person's. You might not agree with determinism (in this sense I am trying to convey) but, i'm sure you see it all around you.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.