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

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/27/08 - 04:04 AM:	#126
cortes wrote: ... the pursuit of justice as fundamental, that the world ought to be some particular way and that we are obligated to make it so. The pursuit of justice is not a view that the world ought to be something particular, it merely serves when seeking resolution, when it becomes necessary to arbitrate between changing sets of competing agent-relative as well as certain agent-neutral interests. It is a fixed view only with regard to the assumption that such arbitration is by necessity unbiased and unperfecting so that it doesn't slip into injustice. Justice is the epitome of moral necessity. It is self contradictory to complain about the pursuit of justice when the very same procedures of objective reason must be engaged in constructing a philosophical position. Just as it is self contradictory to insist that individuals owe nothing to each other and yet learn their means of expressing that assertion from those very same others of whom we claim independence.

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/27/08 - 05:20 AM:	#127
cortes wrote: People do not become gas attendants because it was dictated by some central planner but because, all things considered, it was the best opportunity they had. I can see that I did not make myself clear. I believe in a free market economy, individual rights, and the Austrian School of Economics as presented by Mises. So, I do think everyone should be free to pursue their interests, and I certainly detest the idea of a society being managed by some group. I was just stating the fact that a society needs all sorts of people and in a free market economy people can pursue their own interests and fill whatever niche in society that they choose. cortes wrote: That point is called "death". Until then there are always possibilities. But, the number of possibilities shrink ever smaller, and the number of opportunities shrink ever smaller. cortes wrote: I take a different view. I am neither an atheist nor a slave to God. I like the Jewish concept of struggling with God. I believe a person is either an athiest or a religious person, and if someone says differently then they are just deluding themselves.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 06:01 AM:	#128
Benkei wrote: While you have that dictionary in your hand you will find that the meaning of "undeserved" is that it is something gained "unjustifiably or unfair", which is not the same as to "not deserve". Quite the contrary, that was my secondary point: you owe your existence to the injustice of the world. You gained something (your existence) that you did not deserve and thus you hold it unjustly. This follows from the simple idea that justice is people getting what the deserve. Note, again, the "un" in "unjust" and "unfair". Benkei wrote: "Manchester bested Chelsea at football because it was better, it deserved to win." "Although Chelsea was the better team, Manchester got a lucky shot off and won, it did not deserve to win." "Although Chelsea was the better team, Manchester won because it illegally plowed into Chelsea's striker, it won undeservedly." What is so hard about grasping these differences? "Despite appalinig ballhanding, Manchester collected an undeserved win as a result of several lucky shots." Sounds fine to me. Benkei wrote: If you mean that the questions make grammatical sense, sure... But the fact that you consider them valid questions... These questions are inane because you are asking the wrong questions. There are no wrong questions. Period. Benkei wrote: Exactly, there are no square circles because they cannot have the quality of squareness. Finally. Benkei wrote: There are no deserved lives (as opposed to undeserved lives) because lives cannot have the quality of deservedness... Then you should at least be able to conclude that there are no deserved lives, right? Benkei wrote: We don't go around making lists like that (although they are implied), which is why when these things are obviously implied we do not ask the question. Maybe you don't. I have here put the issue forward with respect to "deserve". Benkei wrote: I in fact agree that we do not owe our existence to any specific person or entity but then I do not agree that existing things value existence. Plenty of non-sentient life that has no concept of value. I'm not making a claim about things in general, only about humans. I am claiming that people value their existence. Benkei wrote: In fact, I do not believe people value their lives for the sake of being alive. Ask people "why do you value your life?" and their answers will be "because of my wife", "because of my friends", "because I own things" etc. Life appears to be without value to people if they do not obtain things throughout its course that they value. It doesn't matter why, it only matters that they do. (It is entirely reasonable for people to value their specific life experiences.) Valuing existence is merely the beginning.
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 07:03 AM:	#129
litkey wrote: Generally speaking you do not agree with me that there is something we call "human nature" - you tend to think 'we are what we desire and choose' and I think we are, generally speaking, creatures of evolution - but you would disagree with that, as determinism doesn't sit in yer craw. Uh, no. I never said there was no thing called "human nature", I said that although we will tend to behave automatically when we do not think (acting out of habit), we can think and choose and change our habits and even our desires (in some cases). I do not think that the future is 100% contingent on the past. But my reference here was to our discussion of "natural rights" which I denied. I pointed out that there is no consistent basis for the concept, merely a desire on the part of some for rights without society. litkey wrote: ...all Individuals would say "no" to slavery Only in a Rawlsian fantasy world. We know that all individuals did not say "no" to slavery becase we know it existed (and still exists in some places today). You can even find instances where people volunteered into slavery where the form was more benign and the circumstances dire. litkey wrote: Yes, the same with the dice, although a scientist will tell you the humber of the dice was caused by X number of rolls along the table; and this in turn was caused by velocity, and .... ....You ignore the point about something being the cause for something else - I would advise you to look to your daily life: doesn't it seem to you that there is always a cause? Few scientists would say that today. There is a great deal less confidence in determinism than in the last century. That does not mean we don't look for causes. But there is a difference between mining for gold inthe hopes of finding it and assuming that it is there to be found. In fact, science depends on nondeterminism. Every controlled experiment requires it. litkey wrote: Ok, but what might cause this choice? Among the possibilities is that the choice is uncaused. litkey wrote: Sure, but it depends on what you mean by "free will." Without going into the dark quagmire, I would simply say that you think you have power over choice, but I think your choices are dependent - on other things. This, however, does not deny a Will. whether this be "free" or not is another question. Reformed Nihlist made a good point on this; the term "free will" seems tautologous. A Will might just be a power, something about the human character to decide between choice(s)- but these choice(s) being "free" does not seem to make sense, because we are social beings, and placed within the context. If I merely "think" I have power over choice, but really don't, then I can't mistakenly choose to believe in free will. Such choice was caused. (If will implies freedom that's fine.)
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 07:11 AM:	#130
Glypt wrote: The pursuit of justice is not a view that the world ought to be something particular, it merely serves when seeking resolution, when it becomes necessary to arbitrate between changing sets of competing agent-relative as well as certain agent-neutral interests. This is a more constrained view of justice than the one to which I was referring but even here we see the same logic: There is a way that conflicts are supposed to be resolved. The reality is, of course, that the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict. There is no inherent necessity to arbitrate, merely a desire on the part of some for a different resolution. Glypt wrote: It is a fixed view only with regard to the assumption that such arbitration is by necessity unbiased and unperfecting so that it doesn't slip into injustice. You mean to tell us that justice prevents injustice? I'm so glad you shared that with us. Glypt wrote: Justice is the epitome of moral necessity. It is self contradictory to complain about the pursuit of justice when the very same procedures of objective reason must be engaged in constructing a philosophical position. Just as it is self contradictory to insist that individuals owe nothing to each other and yet learn their means of expressing that assertion from those very same others of whom we claim independence. A just world is one in which I am recognized as a living god. I am all for pursuing that justice. But insofar as justice means getting everyone what they deserve, that is self-anhialiation.
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 07:13 AM:	#131
optrader wrote: But, the number of possibilities shrink ever smaller, and the number of opportunities shrink ever smaller. Yes, of course, there is reality within which choices are made. My experience, though, is that most people misjudge reality both in underestimating some options and overestimating others.
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: 51
Total Posts: 831

Posted 05/27/08 - 07:33 AM:	#132
cortes wrote: Uh, no. I never said there was no thing called "human nature", I said that although we will tend to behave automatically when we do not think (acting out of habit), we can think and choose and change our habits and even our desires (in some cases). I do not think that the future is 100% contingent on the past. Look, this is just terrible, you need to start thinking straight, fly right, and get off the drink, or out of the sun - are you in a hot climate?? "Humans" (or people) always act out of habit. You ever heard "creatures of habit"? Again, I would ask you to do some self analysis to find the truth or falsehood of this notion. Philosophers tend to stay away from "...100%." type thinking, as it makes the author look retarded, and opens them to ridicule. You do not think the future is contingent on the past, well sport, could you tell me what it is contingent upon? -i'm just going to look for some pillows. But my reference here was to our discussion of "natural rights" which I denied. I pointed out that there is no consistent basis for the concept, merely a desire on the part of some for rights without society. "Man's most agreeable mind is found in society." Ok, this is diverting, and is obliquly made, however it is said to remind you that 'outside' society man does not exist. By "society" I mean other people, and without other people we are nothing, there is no language, no music, no art, no ideas. "Natural Rights" are simply those things that we share; OR those things, that we agree we share....reason, passion, loves, hates... there is a History to Natural Rights - this indicates 1) The Dialgue (and on-going) and 2) A progressive movement, from slavery - - - > to universal human rights. You can even find instances where people volunteered into slavery where the form was more benign and the circumstances dire. "slavery" means little if we aren't going to give contextual parameter - if a person is beaten, if they are paid zero for their work, if they have their children raped, If... then we will have a situation that zero people would enter into, again, I would ask you to re-think the Rawlsian thought experiment. (re: Human Reason/Nature). Few scientists would say that today. There is a great deal less confidence in determinism than in the last century. This is simply false. Of course there are a few screw-ball scientists out there that believe in free will, and God etc., but i'm certain they are the minority (although perhaps in the US they are the majority) as "scientist" presupposes a questioning mind; and experience yields up the thought "something happens because of a reason." ??? Are your actions simply random? Without cause? Course they aren't. That does not mean we don't look for causes. But there is a difference between mining for gold inthe hopes of finding it and assuming that it is there to be found. huh? In fact, science depends on nondeterminism. Every controlled experiment requires it. How could a "controlled" experiment be non-determined? The very instance of controlling the experiment MEANS it is determined. If I merely "think" I have power over choice, but really don't, then I can't mistakenly choose to believe in free will. Such choice was caused. (If will implies freedom that's fine.) As far as I can gather you believe in Free Will, BUT you do not say it is "true" you are happy to accept it as a "possible truth" or it is something that is agreeable with your nature? That's all well and good, but that isn't philosophy, right?
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 07:55 AM:	#133
litkey wrote: "Humans" (or people) always act out of habit. You ever heard "creatures of habit"? No, they don't. litkey wrote: Again, I would ask you to do some self analysis to find the truth or falsehood of this notion. Asixozbhes;lapsere. What habit was that? litkey wrote: You do not think the future is contingent on the past, well sport, could you tell me what it is contingent upon? -i'm just going to look for some pillows. As I ponited out before, the mere possibility of indeterminism is enough to upset determinism. The outcome of a genuinely random coin toss is not contingent on anything that went before. litkey wrote: Ok, this is diverting, and is obliquly made, however it is said to remind you that 'outside' society man does not exist. I previously gave two examples: war and slavery. War is a conflict between societies. There are no social ties between nations at war. People enslave other people most typically foreign non-citizens, i.e. not members of their society. For war or slavery to be unjust there must be "natural law". litkey wrote: By "society" I mean other people... By "ice cream" I mean yellow toads. Please stop equating "society" and people. A society is not merely a group of people. litkey wrote: "Natural Rights" are simply those things that we share; OR those things, that we agree we share....reason, passion, loves, hates... there is a History to Natural Rights - this indicates 1) The Dialgue (and on-going) and 2) A progressive movement, from slavery - - - > to universal human rights. No, "natural rights" is a claim that there exist rights apart from society. It is the claim, for example, that it is wrong to murder regardless of the social laws. (Recall, for example, that the Jewish Holocaust was undertaken under due process of Nazi law. Slavery was (almost) always legal where it was practiced. Virtually all wars are undertaken according ot the laws of the aggressor society) litkey wrote: "slavery" means little if we aren't going to give contextual parameter - if a person is beaten, if they are paid zero for their work, if they have their children raped, If... then we will have a situation that zero people would enter into, again, I would ask you to re-think the Rawlsian thought experiment. (re: Human Reason/Nature). Wrong. Please study your history. Early slavery was an option given to defeated armies (and sometimes populations) as an alternative to slaughter. The slave has a choice and chooses slavery. litkey wrote: This is simply false. Of course there are a few screw-ball scientists out there that believe in free will, and God etc., but i'm certain they are the minority (although perhaps in the US they are the majority) as "scientist" presupposes a questioning mind; and experience yields up the thought "something happens because of a reason." ??? Are your actions simply random? Without cause? Course they aren't. This was how Einstein reacted at first ("God does not play with dice") but even he came around eventually. litkey wrote: How could a "controlled" experiment be non-determined? The very instance of controlling the experiment MEANS it is determined. The theory behind a controlled experiment relies on the freedom of the experimentor to assign conditions. To put it simply, science works under the assumption that the subject under study is follows a deterministic behavior while the experimentors are operating freely. litkey wrote: As far as I can gather you believe in Free Will, BUT you do not say it is "true" you are happy to accept it as a "possible truth" or it is something that is agreeable with your nature? That's all well and good, but that isn't philosophy, right? No, I say that I cannot prove free will but that I am satisfied that I cannot make an error in choosing to believe in free will. (Determinism, indeterminism, and free will are all concepts that cannot be proven or disproven.)
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 05/27/08 - 08:11 AM:	#134
cortes wrote: "The reality is, of course, that the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict." But that does not constitute 'a just' resolution. It is the law of the jungle out of which most civilised societies are striving to lift themselves. cortes wrote: "There is no inherent necessity to arbitrate, merely a desire on the part of some for a different resolution." Justice entails arbitration or impartial procedures, by necessity. cortes wrote: "You mean to tell us that justice prevents injustice? I'm so glad you shared that with us." I have to to share this with you because you do not seem to understand the distinction between resolution, simpliciter, and justice or just resolution. cortes wrote: "A just world is one in which I am recognized as a living god. I am all for pursuing that justice." Such recognition cannot lead to any kind of justice for it denies basic notions inherrent in the concept of justice. If you are claiming to be a living god you must ascribe that status to all other humans in relation to whom you are fundamentally dependent. As soon as your interests conflict you will require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system. cortes wrote: "But insofar as justice means getting everyone what they deserve. " Fortunately, that is not entirely what justice means. Where a conflict of interest obtains we deserve that which does not diminish a just treatment on either side. We may deserve more, from our perspective, we may deserve less from the perspective of our legal adversary. While both perspectives may be right in their own way, a compromise must be forthcoming. Such equal opportunity before the law is a sign of justice and of a civilised community.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 08:35 AM:	#135
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: "The reality is, of course, that the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict." But that does not constitute 'a just' resolution. It is the law of the jungle out of which most civilised societies are striving to lift themselves. It is a resolution. Period. It may not be a "just" resolution depending on how "justice" is defined. But any such definition of justice to "lift" society from "the jungle" entails a belief about how the world ought to be. That is the justice worldview. Glypt wrote: Justice entails arbitration or impartial procedures, by necessity. No, there is no "necessity" to avoid the "law of the jungle". It works just fine as a method of conflict resolution. Glypt wrote: Such recognition cannot lead to any kind of justice for it denies basic notions inherrent in the concept of justice. If you are claiming to be a living god you must ascribe that status to all other humans in relation to whom you are fundamentally dependent. No, I don't. If I am hungry, those who worship me will feed me. Glypt wrote: As soon as your interests conflict you will require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system. No, I don't. When the United States crushed Nazi Germany it didn't "require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system." (In fact, it was idiots who believed in the arbitrating powers such as the League of Nations that got Europe in that mess.) Glypt wrote: Such equal opportunity before the law is a sign of justice and of a civilised community. Everyone has an equal opportunity to worship me as a living god.
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 05/27/08 - 09:20 AM:	#136
cortes wrote: But any such definition of justice to "lift" society from "the jungle" entails a belief about how the world ought to be. That is the justice worldview. Noone here has stated such a definition of justice. I'm not sure why you have reconfigured my message in that way. cortes wrote: No, there is no "necessity" to avoid the "law of the jungle". It works just fine as a method of conflict resolution. Well it certainly was Hitlers favourite cortes wrote: No, I don't. If I am hungry, those who worship me will feed me. ? cortes wrote: No, I don't. When the United States crushed Nazi Germany it didn't "require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system." (In fact, it was idiots who believed in the arbitrating powers such as the League of Nations that got Europe in that mess.) Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany, are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? cortes wrote: Everyone has an equal opportunity to worship me as a living god. ? Edited by Glypt on 05/27/08 - 01:11 PM

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 09:29 AM:	#137
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: But any such definition of justice to "lift" society from "the jungle" entails a belief about how the world ought to be. That is the justice worldview. Noone here has stated such a definition of justice. I'm not sure why you have reconfigured my message in that way. Even in your more limited use, you are using justice to describe how the world ought to be: how conflicts ought to be resolved. (I assume you are aware that conflicts are not always resolved in the manner that you desire.) Glypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany, are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? I am suggesting nothing either way, merely explaining the facts fo life to you. Glypt wrote: Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? I already told you my idea of justice: a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god.
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 05/27/08 - 11:33 AM:	#138
Justice from "Just: *morally right and fair" (Pearsall, J., ed, 1999, The concise Oxford Dictionary, 10^th edn., Oxford University Press inc., New York, p.768)* cortes wrote: … you are using justice to describe how the world ought to be: how conflicts ought to be resolved… I'll help you again because the content of your reply suggest you haven't read my messages >>> Glypt wrote: The pursuit of justice is not a view that the world ought to be something particular, it merely serves when seeking resolution, when it becomes necessary to arbitrate between changing sets of competing agent-relative as well as certain agent-neutral interests. It is a fixed view only with regard to the assumption that such arbitration is by necessity unbiased and unperfecting so that it doesn't slip into injustice. Justice is the epitome of moral necessity. It is self contradictory to complain about the pursuit of justice when the very same procedures of objective reason must be engaged in constructing a philosophical position. Just as it is self contradictory to insist that individuals owe nothing to each other and yet learn their means of expressing that assertion from those very same others of whom we claim independence. cortes wrote: (I assume you are aware that conflicts are not always resolved in the manner that you desire.) I have not expressed 'my desire'. I'm merely reporting about that which must obtain for any reasonable debate about lexical and normative understanding of justice to exist (see above definition...that is, not my own). Conflicts that are 'resolved' unfairly, outside of justice, are not relevant. You brought them up for reasons only apparent to yourself. Glypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany, are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? cortes wrote: I am suggesting nothing either way. I can't understand why you cannot answer one way or another. Why are you dodging these questions, after all you first mentioned the example of crushing nazi germany? Is it because you understand a just solution to be any that leads to the most powerful winning; whoever that might be? . cortes wrote: I already told you my idea of justice: a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. I refer you once more >>> cortes wrote: If you are claiming to be a living god you must ascribe that status to all other humans in relation to whom you are fundamentally dependent. As soon as your interests conflict you will require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system. Edited by Glypt on 05/27/08 - 01:07 PM

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/27/08 - 01:52 PM:	#139
Glypt wrote: I have not expressed 'my desire'. I'm merely reporting about that which must obtain for any reasonable debate about lexical and normative understanding of justice to exist (see above definition...that is, not my own). Conflicts that are 'resolved' unfairly, outside of justice, are not relevant. You brought them up for reasons only apparent to yourself. Conflicts may be resolved by any number of means. To say that just is morally right and fair does not add much to the discussion without devling into what is morally right and fair. My original point, if you will recall, was that justice entailed a claim about what the way the world ought to be. You tried to restrict the notion to conflict resolution and I pointed out that even in that restricted domain (which is actually not very restricted when socialists make claims on everything) this is still the case. Glypt wrote: I can't understand why you cannot answer one way or another. I didn't say I "can't". Where did that come from? I said I was suggesting nothing either way. Glypt wrote: Why are you dodging these questions, after all you first mentioned the example of crushing nazi germany? Is it because you understand a just solution to be any that leads to the most powerful winning; whoever that might be? . You claimed that a judicial system was necessary. I pointed out that it was not. Glypt wrote: I refer you once more cortes wrote: I already told you my idea of justice: a just world is one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. If you are claiming to be a living god you must ascribe that status to all other humans in relation to whom you are fundamentally dependent. As soon as your interests conflict you will require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system. I already corrected you on this point: No I don't. Your problem is that you use "you must" far to liberally. You seem to use it as a synonmy for "I would prefer it you did."
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: 44
Total Posts: 1774

Posted 05/27/08 - 11:19 PM:	#140
There is one Basic Principle: 1) We deserve to exist. This principle is a simple observation of fact, one with simplistic implications. To establish the factuality of the first principle, simply notice that you never did anything to not deserve being born. You couldn't without existing before you existed. Nuff Said.
- 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.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1774

Posted 05/27/08 - 11:27 PM:	#141
Oh no, I forgot, "thank God life is so fair".
- 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 05/28/08 - 12:25 AM:	#142
cortes wrote: My original point, if you will recall, was that justice entailed a claim about what the way the world ought to be. And you will recall that your point has been refuted on several occasions because the concept of justice aspires by its very nature to be unbiased. This is backed up not merely by my assertion but by the normative practice of law in western democracies but also by the lexical definition I have provided. Therefore, if you deny justice, as fairness, is a proper application of justice then you must have some other method of resolving conflicts outside of justice. The only one I can detect is the primitive 'justice' one finds in the jungle, a type of might is right philosophy, given that the only one I have managed to find coming from your clouds of rhetoric is this: cortes wrote: the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict. Wherein, it will be clearly apparent to any third party reading these exchanges that you rely on points that distort and restrict the lexical and normative notion of justice to the anthithesis of justice. In this you specify that justice emerges when the strong overpowers the weak, such as exemplified in your WWII comments, and to which I responded: Glypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany, are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? You then failed to answer. I ask: Glypt wrote: Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? You fail to answer You've stated… cortes wrote: One of the correllaries of my observations is that justice and fairness is a not desirable worldview. and, as noted above, cortes wrote: the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict. This has previously led me to ask: Glypt wrote: If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? Yet again, you fail to answer I stated… Glypt wrote: If you are claiming to be a living god you must ascribe that status to all other humans in relation to whom you are fundamentally dependent. As soon as your interests conflict you will require the services of society to warrant just outcomes as arbitrated through the juridical system. Your only reply was cortes wrote: I already corrected you on this point: No I don't. Therefore, in the absense of any further explanation from you, the main conclusion I can draw is that you are reserving your 'godlike' status only for yourself; I can see now why you do not like justice. The latter reveals that yet again, your answers and lack of them fail you. You fail to provide any supporting argument as to how you can claim to be independent while everything you express is possible only within a social context and with all the contingencies that must entail. You fail to live up to your responsibilities to afford others the same claims of personal 'divinity' where conflict arises so that they may be afforded the same opportunities before the law. You state: cortes wrote: Your problem is that you use "you must" far to liberally. You seem to use it as a synonmy for "I would prefer it you did." I reply that on those occasions that I use the word 'must' it is not as a request or command but as a sign that a logical necessity obtains. It is sometimes shorter than saying 'it necessarily follows that'. Edited by Glypt on 05/28/08 - 05:23 AM

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 831

Posted 05/28/08 - 04:41 AM:	#143
cortes wrote: No, they don't. Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere, although quite slowly. Let me ask you a question: "where does action spring from" It is my belief that action springs from belief, from attitudes, from intentionality. I think it is far fetched to say we do things for "no reason." Quite frankly, you should be locked up in a mental institution if you think we are creatures of randomness. So, perhaps you do not equate 'entirely' human action to habit, but perhaps to an intentional stance? Asixozbhes;lapsere. What habit was that? Yes, this was very much a habit. You have the habit of always needing to be right, or you will feel inferior. This perhaps comes from your childhood; I would say you never had an "amazing" education (on paper at least), that you never got what you wanted when you were younger, and now you always need to be correct, or right. Habit formed? As I ponited out before, the mere possibility of indeterminism is enough to upset determinism. The outcome of a genuinely random coin toss is not contingent on anything that went before. This is not indeterminism. Yes, in the one sense, we can ascribe 'random' to the coin toss, as we as Individuals have to guess what the outcome will be - It is not determined...in this way; but, looking at the bigger picture, in another sense, we can say the coin was determined- and you will need Mr Super Scientist to explain this. There isn't anything mysterious about this, the clouds rain, the universe is expanding (doplar), and shit gets on your shoes: You cannot ascribe the word "Random" to such 'BIG PICTURE' situations. For every action there is a cause, we might 'think' the action is random, but it isn't. The eyes blink automatically, the mind dreams automatically, the feet twitches.... You need to start looking at the bigger picture, and step out the confines of the tiny brain. (I have a tiny brain too). I previously gave two examples: war and slavery. War is a conflict between societies. There are no social ties between nations at war. People enslave other people most typically foreign non-citizens, i.e. not members of their society. For war or slavery to be unjust there must be "natural law". Wrong. Wars can happen within a single society. Salvery can and does happen within a single society. You have no arguments. Where are your premises and conclusions??? You have nothing. By "ice cream" I mean yellow toads. Please stop equating "society" and people. A society is not merely a group of people. That's a retarded example. "Society" does mean other people, and it is within such a society where "slave" discourse takes place, and ALL SOCIETES SAY IT IS WRONG!!!! Ok, there was slavery in the past, but your example is piss into the wind - who would want to die?? I bet some people chose death over slavery.....right? Get your bad habits sorted out. Admit it, you are wrong on this front. The theory behind a controlled experiment relies on the freedom of the experimentor to assign conditions. To put it simply, science works under the assumption that the subject under study is follows a deterministic behavior while the experimentors are operating freely. SO, you have now agreed with me - the subject is DETERMINISTIC. I really am nonplussed as to what you mean by the experimentors acting freely...do you mean they can buy some juice? Isn't that determined from thirst??
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

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 05:32 AM:	#144
Cortes in reply to Benkei: Quite the contrary, that was my secondary point: you owe your existence to the injustice of the world. You gained something (your existence) that you did not deserve and thus you hold it unjustly. This follows from the simple idea that justice is people getting what the deserve. Cortes, there is still confusion over your terminology. I don't believe that your ideas are all that different from the rest of us on this forum, but your continued use of certain phrases gives the implication that you believe differently. When I probed you on your own personal beliefs, I found that your thinking and mine were much in agreement. I don't believe you actually believe that 'you owe your existence to injustice in the world'. You don't seem to understand just how illogical the rest of us perceive this phrase. Using 'injustice', 'owe', and 'existence' in the same sentence is not a 'logical' construction. You may be using this as an example of what you believe other people believe. Maybe you can clarify this. I don't think 'you' really believe that phrase. I found it logical to say that a lot of people believe that their lives is a gift. I could say that a lot of people believe that living is an opportunity. But, to provide these phrases as actual philosophical principles is very problematic. I hope you can clarify YOUR thinking. Maybe you could leave aside your philosophical principles and just present your own perspective of life.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/28/08 - 06:01 AM:	#145
optrader wrote: Cortes in reply to Benkei: Quite the contrary, that was my secondary point: you owe your existence to the injustice of the world. You gained something (your existence) that you did not deserve and thus you hold it unjustly. This follows from the simple idea that justice is people getting what the deserve. Cortes, there is still confusion over your terminology. I don't believe that your ideas are all that different from the rest of us on this forum, but your continued use of certain phrases gives the implication that you believe differently. When I probed you on your own personal beliefs, I found that your thinking and mine were much in agreement. I don't believe you actually believe that 'you owe your existence to injustice in the world'. You don't seem to understand just how illogical the rest of us perceive this phrase. Using 'injustice', 'owe', and 'existence' in the same sentence is not a 'logical' construction. You may be using this as an example of what you believe other people believe. Maybe you can clarify this. I don't think 'you' really believe that phrase. I found it logical to say that a lot of people believe that their lives is a gift. I could say that a lot of people believe that living is an opportunity. But, to provide these phrases as actual philosophical principles is very problematic. I hope you can clarify YOUR thinking. Maybe you could leave aside your philosophical principles and just present your own perspective of life. You are correct. I should not have used the world "owe" there. What I mean to say was that our existence is a consequence of the unfairness of the world, i.e. that people get what they do 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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/28/08 - 07:54 AM:	#146
Glypt wrote: And you will recall that your point has been refuted on several occasions because the concept of justice aspires by its very nature to be unbiased. This is backed up not merely by my assertion but by the normative practice of law in western democracies but also by the lexical definition I have provided. You are engaging in equivocation. You originally claimed that justice was requird to resolve conflicts. I refuted that by pointing out that conflicts could be resolved by the stronger defeating the weaker. (There are many other ways but I simply offered one for purposes of refutation.) You replied by intrducing the concept of moral and fair resolution to which I replied that they were ambiguous terms. Now you want to introduce "unbiased". The gap is growing ever wider between your original claim and your evidence. Your invocation of "unbiased" a simplification that hides far too much. Justice is very much biased. It is biased against murderers and thieves, for example. The relationship between justice and bias is more precise: justice, as it is most commonly used, is an unbiased application of the law. Where the is biased, so is justice. It is, in short, biased against the violation of the law. In order to make sense of the concept of justice you must first visit the concept of law. And how are laws made? In the best case, laws are enacted when a majority (the strong) defeats a minority (the weak). (I other cases, it is made when a king defeats his enemies and imposes law upon his subjects.) If the law says that it is a crime not to bow before the king then justice requires the punishment of those who fail to do so, regardless of their station in life. Thus we see that even your textbook concept of justice relies on a nonjudicial resolution of conflict. Glypt wrote: Therefore, if you deny justice, as fairness, is a proper application of justice then you must have some other method of resolving conflicts outside of justice. The only one I can detect is the primitive 'justice' one finds in the jungle, a type of might is right philosophy, given that the only one I have managed to find coming from your clouds of rhetoric is this: Then you must not be thinking very hard. By far, the vast majority of conflicts are not resolved either by force nor by a judicial system. They are resolved by compromise and agreement. I gave you the example of the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany which did not requre a judicial system. Let me now give you another at the other extreme: Since being married I have had many conflicts with my wife. Never once did we require the services of a judicial system to resolve our conflicts. If you look around you will find that this is generally the case. Marital disputes that end up in court are, by far, the exception and the usual outcome in those cases is divorce. Glypt wrote: Therefore, in the absense of any further explanation from you, the main conclusion I can draw is that you are reserving your 'godlike' status only for yourself; I can see now why you do not like justice. You are correct on the first point and confused on the second. Insofar as I am "required" to pursue justice, I pursue the justice of my godlike status. A just world is one in which I, Hernan Cortes, am worshiped as a living god. Now of course, I recognize that there is much injustice in the world and I try to educate people about their moral duty to worship me. Glypt wrote: You fail to provide any supporting argument as to how you can claim to be independent while everything you express is possible only within a social context and with all the contingencies that must entail. On this again, are we? Explain to me how Plato managed to do philosophy without taking the Big Bang into account? (You do realize, of course, that philosophy is dependent on the Big Bang, don't you? And that Plato had no concept of it in is vast writings?) Glypt wrote: You fail to live up to your responsibilities to afford others the same claims of personal 'divinity' where conflict arises so that they may be afforded the same opportunities before the law. I have no such responsibility. If I have any responsibility it is to educate my fellow man on my godlike status. Glypt wrote: You state: I reply that on those occasions that I use the word 'must' it is not as a request or command but as a sign that a logical necessity obtains. It is sometimes shorter than saying 'it necessarily follows that'. No, its not. You are simply throwing it out there in lieu of a logical argument.
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/28/08 - 08:28 AM:	#147
Benkei wrote: There is one Basic Principle: 1) We deserve to exist. This principle is a simple observation of fact, one with simplistic implications. To establish the factuality of the first principle, simply notice that you never did anything to not deserve being born. You couldn't without existing before you existed. Nuff Said. Congratulations, you made your case. You have succeeded in undermining my elegant, logical argument. It looks like I will have to follow optrader's advice and fall back on the ambiguous prudential argument.
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/28/08 - 08:46 AM:	#148
litkey wrote: Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere, although quite slowly. Let me ask you a question: "where does action spring from" It is my belief that action springs from belief, from attitudes, from intentionality. I think it is far fetched to say we do things for "no reason." Quite frankly, you should be locked up in a mental institution if you think we are creatures of randomness. So, perhaps you do not equate 'entirely' human action to habit, but perhaps to an intentional stance? Look, in terms of this discussion there are three competing concepts: determinism, indeterminism, and free will. I don't pretend to understand how free will works. But I am not inclined to dismiss it merely because I don't understand it. (The fact that I can't explain how gravity works doesn't mean I cease to believe in it.) Indeterminism is sufficient to undermine determinism though it falls short of free will. litkey wrote: This is not indeterminism. Yes, in the one sense, we can ascribe 'random' to the coin toss, as we as Individuals have to guess what the outcome will be - It is not determined...in this way; but, looking at the bigger picture, in another sense, we can say the coin was determined- and you will need Mr Super Scientist to explain this. No, you are misunderstanding indeterminism (i.e. genuine randomness). Pseudo random means unpredictable from a given perspective (e.g. a computer random number generator). Genuinely random, indeterminism, means that there is no perspective, no knowledge, that allows prediction of the outcome. litkey wrote: There isn't anything mysterious about this, the clouds rain, the universe is expanding (doplar), and shit gets on your shoes: You cannot ascribe the word "Random" to such 'BIG PICTURE' situations. For every action there is a cause, we might 'think' the action is random, but it isn't. The eyes blink automatically, the mind dreams automatically, the feet twitches.... You need to start looking at the bigger picture, and step out the confines of the tiny brain. (I have a tiny brain too). Yes, we can predict many things because there are many things in the world that are obviously determined. The question is whether everything is determined. That's determinism. 100% predictability given absolute knowledge of the starting point. litkey wrote: Wrong. Wars can happen within a single society. Salvery can and does happen within a single society. You have no arguments. Where are your premises and conclusions??? You have nothing. Even civil wars tend to occur between well defined factions. (Insofar as they occur within society they tend to be very messy.) The point is not to account for all wars and slavery. The point is that war is typically waged between societies and slavery imposed against those who are not members of the slaveholder society. And yet there are those who claim that wars must be just and that slavery is unjust. litkey wrote: That's a retarded example. "Society" does mean other people... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society litkey wrote: ALL SOCIETES SAY IT IS WRONG!!!! No, Roman society, to name just one well known example, did not say it was wrong. Quite the contrary. Roman society was built on slavery. litkey wrote: SO, you have now agreed with me - the subject is DETERMINISTIC. I really am nonplussed as to what you mean by the experimentors acting freely...do you mean they can buy some juice? Isn't that determined from thirst?? The model of controlled experiments seeks a deterministic model. The exeriment can fail to find one (falsifiability). But my point is that in order for controlled experiments to work in the first place, the experimenters must be in control. If they are just puppets of fate then no conclusion is valid.
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 05/28/08 - 09:18 AM:	#149
cortes wrote: In order to make sense of the concept of justice you must first visit the concept of law. The above is utter nonsense. To make a law you must first visit the complex and reflexive relation that constitutes procedural and substantive justice: Laws result from the interdependent relation of procedural and substantive justice. This mirrors the interdependent relation of ethicality and morality extant therein. There has been no equivication on my part. It is merely that you do not understand the complex relationships involved. A lack of bias underwrites the objectivity necessary in the 'just', 'fair', and 'right' that is placed within the laws by which people are prepared to be governed in western democratic societies. This is not a state of opinion, it is a statement of fact. cortes wrote: in short, biased against the violation of the law …tantamount to ' biased against the bias' cortes wrote: And how are laws made? In the best case, laws are enacted when a majority (the strong) defeats a minority (the weak). (I other cases, it is made when a king defeats his enemies and imposes law upon his subjects.) If the law says that it is a crime not to bow before the king then justice requires the punishment of those who fail to do so, regardless of their station in life. This is more arrant nonsense. The conflict in shaping law in a democracy is a moral one built around respect for the individual as the centre of independent moral status, a person who is the custodial centre of a life. In that sense it is deonological. It is a contest of reasonable argumentation not of might is right. Reasonable, being distinct from merely rational in terms of a singular point of view. It seeks to arbitrate as much as possible between the interests of many points of view, to balance duties and rights between citizens seeking to also exercise mutual respect for the independent moral status just mentioned. I am under no illusion that you will, for what ever reason, fail to grasp these ideas. All I ask is for you to stop dodging the questions I've asked in my last message regarding the implication of your example of WWII which I paste for the last time herewith: " Glypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany, are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? Glypt wrote: Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? cortes wrote: the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict. Glypt wrote: If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? "

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 05/28/08 - 09:28 AM:	#150
Glypt wrote: The above is utter nonsense. To make a law you must first visit the complex and reflexive relation that constitutes procedural and substantive justice: Laws result from the interdependent relation of procedural and substantive justice. This mirrors the interdependent relation of ethicality and morality extant therein. There has been no equivication on my part. It is merely that you do not understand the complex relationships involved. A lack of bias underwrites the objectivity necessary in the 'just', 'fair', and 'right' that is placed within the laws by which people are prepared to be governed in western democratic societies. This is not a state of opinion, it is a statement of fact. Again, you are falling victim to your abuse of "must". Laws result from naked force. A king may impose law by the sword. Nothing further is required. This is not a statement of opinion, it is an observation of history. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: in short, biased against the violation of the law …tantamount to ' biased against the bias' No, because the law, itself. can be as biased as it will. "The law in its majesty makes no distinction between rich and poor; both are forbidden to sleep under the bridges of Paris." Glypt wrote: This is more arrant nonsense. The conflict in shaping law in a democracy is a moral one built around respect for the individual as the centre of independent moral status, a person who is the custodial centre of a life. In that sense it is deonological. It is a contest of reasonable argumentation not of might is right. Reasonable, being distinct from merely rational in terms of a singular point of view. It seeks to arbitrate as much as possible between the interests of many points of view, to balance duties and rights between citizens seeking to also exercise mutual respect for the independent moral status just mentioned. What a bunch of crap. Now you are defining morality in terms of the democratic law of the jungle. There is no requirement that voters be reasonable. Voters can cast their votes for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever. There are societies where the voters may be overturend. We call those dictatorships.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.