Philosophy of Conquistadorianism: Philosophy Forums

An error occoured at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?rewritten=1&id=30051&page=7 on 2008-08-21 06:20:37. Please relay this data to support. Error #2: 'mysqli_num_rows() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given' in /home/pgk/public_html/forums/databases/mysqli.php on line 42. Debug info:
mp`,`filefield`,`validatedemail`,`unpaid`,`effectivetime`,`wysihtml`,`movedid`,`unrevised`,`feedurl`,`feedcache`,`feedcachetime`,`sugcatid`,`tags`,`xmlsource`,`ordercomments`,`lastpadupdate`,`invisibleto`,`profileurl`,`lastprofileurl`,`timesrenewed`,`timedeleted`,`sponsorend`,`url`,`recipurl`,`recipwith`,`recipverified`,`pagerank`,`padfile`,`lastmonthlycheck`,`address`,`city`,`state`,`country`,`latitude`,`longtude`,`zip`,`longitude` FROM wsnforum_links WHERE id=30051

Query 47: SELECT `memberid`,`starttime`,`time` FROM wsnforum_sessions WHERE time < 1219298737 AND memberid > 0

Query 49: SELECT `id`,`name`,`parent`,`validated`,`description`,`time`,`parentnames`,`parentids`,`numlinks`,`hide`,`lastlinktime`,`custom`,`lastedit`,`moderators`,`headerinfo`,`related`,`numsub`,`type`,`permissions`,`subscribers`,`subscriber`,`mixtypes`,`isalbum`,`orderlinks`,`totalcomments`,`ulsearchmax`,`ulsearchquery`,`ulsearchadult`,`alias`,`catcols`,`linkcols`,`sponsorlinks`,`views`,`customwrap`,`deleted`,`reqlinks`,`reqcoms`,`reqlinksdelay`,`priority`,`levelsdeep`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`lastcommenttime`,`lastthreadid`,`lastthreadtitle`,`linkshere`,`unvalidatedlinks`,`unvalidatedcomments`,`actaslink`,`countposts`,`subcatshtml`,`opwords`,`dmozpath`,`linksperpage`,`wysihtml`,`numonline`,`sponsorship`,`lastprofileurl`,`lastthreadurl`,`lastposturl`,`defaultnoaccess`,`specialurl` FROM wsnforum_categories WHERE validated=1 AND deleted=0 AND hide=0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Number of rows is You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Query 50: SELECT `id`,`title`,`description`,`rating`,`votes`,`validated`,`catid`,`sumofvotes`,`email`,`time`,`hits`,`numcomments`,`hide`,`ownerid`,`voterips`,`voterids`,`lastedit`,`type`,`notify`,`pendingedit`,`suspended`,`alias`,`expire`,`ip`,`inalbum`,`typeorder`,`hitsoutips`,`lastcomment`,`related`,`inhidden`,`viewers`,`threadviewers`,`hitsouttemp`,`origtype`,`importance`,`parentids`,`timesemailed`,`message`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`sticky`,`threadclosed`,`ownername`,`threadposters`,`deleted`,`downloads`,`funds`,`deletionreason`,`movedto`,`pollid`,`deletedby`,`suspect`,`timesdead`,`posticon`,`timevalidated`,`savedby`,`hitsin`,`hitsinips`,`hitsintemp`,`filefield`,`validatedemail`,`unpaid`,`effectivetime`,`wysihtml`,`movedid`,`unrevised`,`feedurl`,`feedcache`,`feedcachetime`,`sugcatid`,`tags`,`xmlsource`,`ordercomments`,`lastpadupdate`,`invisibleto`,`profileurl`,`lastprofileurl`,`timesrenewed`,`timedeleted`,`sponsorend`,`url`,`recipurl`,`recipwith`,`recipverified`,`pagerank`,`padfile`,`lastmonthlycheck`,`address`,`city`,`state`,`country`,`latitude`,`longtude`,`zip`,`longitude` FROM wsnforum_links WHERE validated=1 AND deleted=0 AND inhidden=0 AND hide=0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Number of rows is You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Query 51: SELECT `id`,`name`,`time`,`usergroup`,`password`,`ip`,`totalhits`,`totalhitsin`,`email`,`validated`,`template`,`language`,`lastattempt`,`allowemail`,`signature`,`avatarname`,`stylesheet`,`allowuseremail`,`albumid`,`failedattempts`,`totalbytes`,`funds`,`notifyoflinks`,`lastvisit`,`timezone`,`rating`,`pmfolders`,`notifyofpms`,`acceptpms`,`cookieduration`,`banned`,`topics`,`posts`,`location`,`homepage`,`occupation`,`bio`,`aim`,`icq`,`msn`,`yahoo`,`inactive`,`timeonline`,`totalpms`,`buddies`,`ignored`,`isonline`,`acceptims`,`adminpermissions`,`referrer`,`groupreverttime`,`grouprevertto`,`moderationpm`,`secondarygroups`,`linksperpage`,`commentsperpage`,`shouts`,`customtitle`,`shoutban`,`topicbans`,`forumbans`,`visibility`,`birthdate`,`lastsession`,`interests`,`posteditor`,`forumaccess`,`pmpopup`,`pmnotify`,`modnotes`,`guestnotes`,`salt`,`lastmodnote`,`field5`,`newpms`,`imflag`,`orderalbums`,`lastguestnote`,`autosubscribe`,`linksalbumid`,`galleryalbumid`,`essaysalbumid`,`links`,`comments`,`images`,`articles`,`notifymethod`,`showavatars`,`showsigs`,`warninglevel`,`chatcolor`,`autosubscribepost`,`traderrating`,`validatedemail`,`invitessent`,`calsub`,`macros`,`blogrss`,`blogcache`,`watched`,`guestnotify`,`keychecktime`,`notifykeywords`,`positivepct`,`notifytrader`,`newemail`,`inactiveemail` FROM wsnforum_members WHERE validated = 1 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

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

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism
Otherwise known as Opportunism

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

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 09:33 AM:	#151
Glypt wrote: 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. lypt wrote: If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? " I was not around to be worshiped then but if I had been I would have demanded the Nazis to submit to my rule.
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 - 11:11 AM:	#152
cortes wrote: Glypt wrote: 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. [quote=cortes]Again, you are falling victim to your abuse of "must". Let me remind you the above is not a statement of my opinion, it is a factual report about the nature of justice. The use of 'must' still stands as valid for the reasons previously given. cortes wrote: Laws result from naked force. A king may impose law by the sword. Nothing further is required. We are not discussing kings, as you well know. Your squirming is becoming somewhat pitiful. cortes wrote: No, because the law, itself. can be as biased as it will. Well done you can add that to your long list of oxymorons cortes wrote: What a bunch of crap. One of your clearer exclamations cortes wrote: Now you are defining morality in terms of the democratic law of the jungle. This sounds a bit desperate. If you are going to deliberately misrepresent a person's message the least you can do is be more plausible cortes wrote: There is no requirement that voters be reasonable. There is if one wants reason to obtain in democratic juridical procedures cortes wrote: Voters can cast their votes for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever. Juridical procedures that debate the principles of law do not vote they argue their position, it constitutes a discursive democratic procedure. The type that I would like to see extended to the people they represent. There will be some who take their duties lightly or who lack the intellect to reason but in general the best argument will emerge especially if there evolves tiers of debate that engages hermeneutic enterprise. But that is in the future, if at all. cortes wrote: There are societies where the voters may be overturend. We call those dictatorships. I'm sure you already know that this statement is absurd. We are not debating dictatorships we are looking at your impoverished understanding of a reasonable justice.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 11:17 AM:	#153
cortes wrote: Glypt wrote: 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. lypt wrote: If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? " I was not around to be worshiped then but if I had been I would have demanded the Nazis to submit to my rule. Your avoidance of giving a direct answer to these straight forward questions signify to me that you are a little ashamed of the answers you would be forced to give. I don't think its necessary in the light of your responses or lack of them to require a reply now from you. We draw the obvious conclusions ourselves.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1777

Posted 05/28/08 - 11:43 AM:	#154
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. The case from the beginning was that it was not logical at all because the conclusion did not necessarily follow the premises. Also I fail to see how I undermined anything as that was all your own doing by arguing a fallacious argument; just as my illustration is a fallacy as well and therefore does not serve as an argument. For the arguments you would have to reread my posts and try to understand them. But I'll read your covenant theory and see what it is about.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 11:47 AM:	#155
Glypt wrote: We are not discussing kings, as you well know. Your squirming is becoming somewhat pitiful. "We" are referring to justice and law. I cited the examples of kings because they provde a simple refutation of your claim. Your evasion of reality is pathetic. Glypt wrote: There is if one wants reason to obtain in democratic juridical procedures So now you are dragging "reason" into your argument. Will this go on forever? I've lost count of all your qualifications. Glypt wrote: Juridical procedures that debate the principles of law do not vote they argue their position, it constitutes a discursive democratic procedure. Voters vote. Representative vote. Even judges vote. Then there are the political systems without voting, e.g. kings and dictators. Glypt wrote: The type that I would like to see extended to the people they represent. There will be some who take their duties lightly or who lack the intellect to reason but in general the best argument will emerge especially if there evolves tiers of debate that engages hermeneutic enterprise. But that is in the future, if at all. Dream on. Glypt wrote: I'm sure you already know that this statement is absurd. We are not debating dictatorships we are looking at your impoverished understanding of a reasonable justice. Ah, so now it is reasonable justice? Let me guess. Reasonable justice is procedures and outcomes you like. How about we just ditch the whole "justice" malarky and expect "reasonable" behavior from each person?
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 - 11:51 AM:	#156
Benkei wrote: The case from the beginning was that it was not logical at all because the conclusion did not necessarily follow the premises. Also I fail to see how I undermined anything as that was all your own doing by arguing a fallacious argument; just as my illustration is a fallacy as well and therefore does not serve as an argument. For the arguments you would have to reread my posts and try to understand them. But I'll read your covenant theory and see what it is about. Unfortunatley, we wasted too much time chasing strawmen. Your other arguments are not improved by this one which addressed the argument as presented.
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 - 12:39 PM:	#157
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: Glypt wrote: 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. lypt wrote: If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? " I was not around to be worshiped then but if I had been I would have demanded the Nazis to submit to my rule. Your avoidance of giving a direct answer to these straight forward questions signify to me that you are a little ashamed of the answers you would be forced to give. I"m not the least bit ashamed to say that a just world is one in which I, Hernan Cortes, am worshiped as a living god. The question of Nazi rule is only just or unjust according to that criteria. Even Nazi's must obey me.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 07:57 PM:	#158
Cortes, I have gone back to the very beginning, examined your principles, and read your summary of them. They are still confusing to me, because I don't believe they are actually what you believe. They still appear to be incomplete principles. They don't state WHAT, WHERE, HOW, WHY, and WHEN. We don't know WHO is giving the 'gift' of life and WHY they are giving it. Since YOU say it is UNDESERVED, then I assume YOU are making a MORAL JUDGEMENT. So, WHAT is the basis for your moral judgement? Are you comparing societies? WHERE is your comparison and WHEN did you make this comparison? I am trying to make a logical link between your sentences and principles and I having the most difficult time doing it. I know we share some similiar ideas. I am trying to grasp your perspective of life. I am really not interested in theory or arguing just for the sake of argument. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread and it seems to be wandering off into multiple directions before the very basic principles have fully been examined and debated. I know I am going to be covering the same ground we have covered a number of times, but I find it necessary to grasp your perspective of life. 1. Why do you describe life as a 'gift'? 2. Why not describe life as burden? A crazy frenzy? A path to learning? A transition to a higher state? 3. Does not a 'gift' invovle a giver and a receiver? So, WHO/WHAT gave WHO/WHAT the GIFT of life? 4. Does people receiving an unearned gift involve a moral judgement? Are you that moral judge, and where did you get your morals? 5. Does receiving a gift cause the receiver to owe the giver? And, who is the giver? 6. Is it YOU that judges the giving of the gift to be undeserved? Could people simply get a gift without any conatation of deserving or undeserving? 7. Why have you picked this particular topic as the basis of a philosophical theory? What prompted you to pick this particular perspective over other perspectives? Why do you believe what you are saying is 'true'? Do you believe that it is 'absolutely true'? 8. Why are you posting your ideas on this forum? Why do you think there is so much confusion in this thread with regard to your principles? 9. Why do you think so many people have told you that your principles are not logical? Do you think other people on this forum know what logic is? Are your principles logical statements about your perspective of life? 10. Do you want others to agree or disagree with you?

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 11:32 PM:	#159
cortes wrote: "We" are referring to justice and law. I cited the examples of kings because they provde a simple refutation of your claim. Your evasion of reality is pathetic. So now you are dragging "reason" into your argument. Will this go on forever? I've lost count of all your qualifications. Voters vote. Representative vote. Even judges vote. Then there are the political systems without voting, e.g. kings and dictators. Dream on. Ah, so now it is reasonable justice? [quote=cortes] Let me guess. Reasonable justice is procedures and outcomes you like. That is really an absurdity given that I have been explaining a model that removes bias in favour of public reason. cortes wrote: How about we just ditch the whole "justice" malarky As I suspected you would abandon justice altogether. You would approve of waging war to settle conflict. There is no need for you to answer the other questions you have been avoiding regarding your example of WWII we now know your answer. cortes wrote: and expect "reasonable" behavior from each person? Yes, especially when it comes to defining and practicing justice. The trouble is that this forum is open to others to read. Anyone looking at the previous messages will note that I'm constantly invoking reason. Such reading will also note that it is impossible for justice to be said to have been done unless reason has been applied. You and I are compelled to expect reason and hence reasonableness to be the bedrock of just adjudications.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/28/08 - 11:48 PM:	#160
cortes wrote: I was not around to be worshiped then but if I had been I would have demanded the Nazis to submit to my rule... The question of Nazi rule is only just or unjust according to that criteria. Finally, we understand your position on justice. Cortes believes that Nazi rule may be justified so long as Cortes is not one of its subjects. Edited by Glypt on 05/29/08 - 03:10 AM

litkey
Kant's retarded son

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 01:21 AM:	#161
cortes wrote: 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.) This is where we uncover our problem. These concepts are not competing with each other (certainly not necessarily); we could say many things were predictable about life, we could say our DNA signified a certain 'determinism' (right?) but we could also say that we had something called 'free choice.' But, then we enter different territory, and we must ask "What is 'free' choice?" What would it mean for a choice to be free...wouldn't it be more reasonable to say our choices were 'chaotic'? Most of our choices are based on "what-we-know", and this means we can predict outcomes: X will happen/// Y will happen/// and it is unlikely that Z will happen///. Is such a choice "Free"? Necessarily, a choice is made, but the choice does not happen in a vacuum. Ever heard of the butterfly affect? One insignificant event cause a greater and much significant event...? This is also related to Chaos Theory. - could something so small, so slight, so insignificant have a great affect on us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory 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. Let's get one thing clear - just because you as a person cannot predict something event X, does not equate to the event being entirely determined. Ofcourse, it evens makes sense to say "the event was determined" - but determined in what way? Is the outcome unpredictable? chaotic? - We cannot have absolute knowledge, this is what "god" is for; we lack the knowledge; Life is essentially unpredictable, we are thrown into this world, but you ask "do we have choice?" course we do. One main problem people have is trying to control the chaos. Hence the "anxiety society"
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 05/29/08 - 05:15 AM:	#162
Glypt wrote: Finally, we understand your position on justice. Cortes believes that Nazi rule may be justified so long as Cortes is not one of its subjects. Close but no cigar. Nazi rule may be justified if it is subject to Hernan Cortes. But then it wouldn't be Nazism, it would be Cortesism because my will, not the Nazi's, would be done.
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 05/29/08 - 05:29 AM:	#163
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: "We" are referring to justice and law. I cited the examples of kings because they provde a simple refutation of your claim. Your evasion of reality is pathetic. ...Ah, so now it is reasonable justice? ...Let me guess. Reasonable justice is procedures and outcomes you like. That is really an absurdity given that I have been explaining a model that removes bias in favour of public reason. You began by denying that the judicial worldview was a grand utopian one insisting, instead, that it was merely a mechanism for resolving disputes. But as I tested your claim you have added one qualification after another until we have finally arrived at...a grand utopian judicial worldview. Perhaps you had this utopian vision in mind from the start but now it is out in the open for everyone to see. Glypt wrote: As I suspected you would abandon justice altogether. You would approve of waging war to settle conflict. There is no need for you to answer the other questions you have been avoiding regarding your example of WWII we now know your answer. As you expected?!!! I said that from the beginning! I said that Opportunism was an alternative to the judicial worldview. Justice has a valid role within a society to implement given laws. But it is not the role that you ascribe to it. Justice depends on the law which depends on many other things. Glypt wrote: Yes, especially when it comes to defining and practicing justice. You have yet to explain your obsession with justice. What need have we of justice if people are behaving "reasonably"? Glypt wrote: Anyone looking at the previous messages will note that I'm constantly invoking reason. No, you are constantly dressing up your opinion in various guises. Each time I refute your claims with examples from history you whine and add new qualifications.
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 05/29/08 - 05:37 AM:	#164
litkey wrote: These concepts are not competing with each other (certainly not necessarily); we could say many things were predictable about life, we could say our DNA signified a certain 'determinism' (right?) but we could also say that we had something called 'free choice.' I hope you're not going to try to sell the idea of compatibalism. I've read Dennet on that and it just sounds like a round square to me. litkey wrote: But, then we enter different territory, and we must ask "What is 'free' choice?" What would it mean for a choice to be free...wouldn't it be more reasonable to say our choices were 'chaotic'? Most of our choices are based on "what-we-know", and this means we can predict outcomes: X will happen/// Y will happen/// and it is unlikely that Z will happen///. Is such a choice "Free"? Necessarily, a choice is made, but the choice does not happen in a vacuum. Ever heard of the butterfly affect? One insignificant event cause a greater and much significant event...? This is also related to Chaos Theory. - could something so small, so slight, so insignificant have a great affect on us? Predictability is one way of understanding determinism. Chaos makes prediction hard (veryhard in fact) but not impossible. A chaotic system that is deterministic can be predicted. So, yes, determinism can look like indeterminism to the casual eye but they are still not the same thing. litkey wrote: Let's get one thing clear - just because you as a person cannot predict something event X, does not equate to the event being entirely determined. Ofcourse, it evens makes sense to say "the event was determined" - but determined in what way? Is the outcome unpredictable? chaotic? - We cannot have absolute knowledge, this is what "god" is for; we lack the knowledge; Life is essentially unpredictable, we are thrown into this world, but you ask "do we have choice?" course we do. One main problem people have is trying to control the chaos. Hence the "anxiety society" Predictability is merely one way of understanding determinism. The main problem is that it is impossible to experimentally determinine if the universe is deterministic. No matter how you cut it, it comes down to belief. All science can do is theorize about specific deterministic effects (e.g. gravity or red hair). The belief in determinism is merely a belief that, over time, everything will come to be explained by past causation.
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 05/29/08 - 07:09 AM:	#165
cortes wrote: Close but no cigar. Nazi rule may be justified if it is subject to Hernan Cortes. But then it wouldn't be Nazism, it would be Cortesism because my will, not the Nazi's, would be done. The questions were not asking whether justice would have been served if Nazi Germany was defeated by Cortesism. The question was quite direct. Instead of tapdancing around your Cortesian locutions, please just answer the questions below, so that we do not all jump to some wrong, possibly distasteful, conclusions about your political perspective. They are based upon an example you have introduced IGlypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany: (1)are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? (2)Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? (cortes wrote: the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict.) Therefore: Glypt wrote: (3) 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 05/29/08 - 08:00 AM:	#166
optrader wrote: 1. Why do you describe life as a 'gift'? 2. Why not describe life as burden? A crazy frenzy? A path to learning? A transition to a higher state? I've switched to using "treasure" per jdrw's suggestion. If life is a burden, it is one easily shed by suicide. So we can rule that one out for those still among us. Crazy? Perhaps at times and often in favorable ways. A path to learning or a transition to a higher state? That's certainly possible. If I put on my theistic hat I could make such an argument. optrader wrote: 3. Does not a 'gift' invovle a giver and a receiver? So, WHO/WHAT gave WHO/WHAT the GIFT of life? I would answer God. But this is not important to my argument so I'm happy to switch to jdrw's suggested metaphor of a "treasure". Life is a treasure found. optrader wrote: 4. Does people receiving an unearned gift involve a moral judgement? Are you that moral judge, and where did you get your morals? The only moral judgement implied is the valuation of the gift/treasure which I noted above. optrader wrote: 5. Does receiving a gift cause the receiver to owe the giver? And, who is the giver? Absolutely not, and this is the key point. The metaphor of a found treasure helps in this regard too. optrader wrote: 6. Is it YOU that judges the giving of the gift to be undeserved? Could people simply get a gift without any conatation of deserving or undeserving? That is implied. One advantage of the gift metaphor is that it is one that we can apply in our own lives. We can choose to give gifts to others without expectation of anything in return. We need not limit ourselves to giving to the deserving. optrader wrote: 7. Why have you picked this particular topic as the basis of a philosophical theory? What prompted you to pick this particular perspective over other perspectives? Why do you believe what you are saying is 'true'? Do you believe that it is 'absolutely true'? I have found from my experience and my reading of others' experiences that the opportunistic worldview is the superior worldview for a variety of reasons. I am seeking to capture that in a set of principles. optrader wrote: 8. Why are you posting your ideas on this forum? Why do you think there is so much confusion in this thread with regard to your principles? Its one way to test my ideas. Although I dismissed some of the criticisms, I have not dismissed all. Confusion implies the need for clarification; errors need correction. On the other hand, there are those like Glypt from whom I expect nothing of that sort. In his case I just enjoy deploying my arguments against his. There is still a test going on there but it is more in the nature of testing whether my ideas offend those I mean to offend. optrader wrote: 9. Why do you think so many people have told you that your principles are not logical? Do you think other people on this forum know what logic is? Are your principles logical statements about your perspective of life? We all read assumptions into what we read. Many arguments here have been strawmen arguments directed at tangential matters. I have to sort out which are relevant and which are not. optrader wrote: 10. Do you want others to agree or disagree with you? I am more interested in some arguments than others. Jdrw made a brief but very valuable contribution. Bernkei finally got around to making a relevant argument that was very important. I'm still having fun with Glypt.
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 05/29/08 - 08:04 AM:	#167
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: Close but no cigar. Nazi rule may be justified if it is subject to Hernan Cortes. But then it wouldn't be Nazism, it would be Cortesism because my will, not the Nazi's, would be done. The questions were not asking whether justice would have been served if Nazi Germany was defeated by Cortesism. The question was quite direct. Instead of tapdancing around your Cortesian locutions, please just answer the questions below, so that we do not all jump to some wrong, possibly distasteful, conclusions about your political perspective. They are based upon an example you have introduced I explained my concept of justice to you and I have explained how my concept of justice would be applied to the question. If you disapprove of my answer that's yoru problem. And please spare us the royal "we".
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 05/29/08 - 08:07 AM:	#168
cortes wrote: Glypt wrote: That is really an absurdity given that I have been explaining a model that removes bias in favour of public reason. You began by denying that the judicial worldview was a grand utopian one insisting, instead, that it was merely a mechanism for resolving disputes. But as I tested your claim you have added one qualification after another until we have finally arrived at...a grand utopian judicial worldview. Perhaps you had this utopian vision in mind from the start but now it is out in the open for everyone to see. As you expected?!!! I said that from the beginning! I said that Opportunism was an alternative to the judicial worldview. Justice has a valid role within a society to implement given laws. But it is not the role that you ascribe to it. Justice depends on the law which depends on many other things. You have yet to explain your obsession with justice. What need have we of justice if people are behaving "reasonably"? No, you are constantly dressing up your opinion in various guises. Each time I refute your claims with examples from history you whine and add new qualifications. It does you no credit to misrepresent previous messages. I will try and encapsulate the same thing we've been stating throughout these forums. The changes in the word use does not alter meaning for different words can mean the same thing. That does not constitute new qualifications. You're wrong in practically every aspect of your conception of justice and its relation to the law. Justifiable law comes from just procedure. (I'm assuming you are interested in justice and laws that are thereby justifiable here) A procedure that is not founded in reason… is unreasonable… unreasonable laws would not be just if its founding process were illegitimate, mirroring thereby the reflexive nature of ethicality and morality: An action cannot be ethical if based upon immoral principles and the authority by which principles come into being must be ethically enacted...Thus deliberative and discursive procedures entail a criss-cross of such transcendent and immanent relationships involving: reason, respect for human life, and the realities of psychological and sociological systems. Justice engages circles of dependency in morality and ethicality, justice and legitimacy, principle and procedure, private and public autonomy, and the claim that immanent psychological and sociological environments, though interdependent are not, and should not be, considered simply reducible. In other words the process that leads to the founding of The Law must itself show no bias for to do so would divest individuals of their independent moral worth. Which is unreasonable, immoral, and hence illegal. The ancient notions to which you adhere are irrelevant to modern life. They speak of an age of barbarism where might was always right, where strength alone decided truth and morality, when kings and dictators used their subjects without regard for their intrinsic value as individual persons. In comparatively recent times such objectifying and dehumanising of people and thereby the absence of justice are sometimes revisited...e.g. in such regimes as Nazi Germany.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 08:48 AM:	#169
Glypt wrote: The questions were not asking whether justice would have been served if Nazi Germany was defeated by Cortesism. The question was quite direct. Instead of tapdancing around your Cortesian locutions, please just answer the questions below, so that we do not all jump to some wrong, possibly distasteful, conclusions about your political perspective. They are based upon an example you have introduced cortes wrote: I explained my concept of justice to you and I have explained how my concept of justice would be applied to the question. If you disapprove of my answer that's yoru problem. No you haven't you have been very vague throughout. I don't disapprove, but you have not given an answer to these questions, you have merely constructed one of your own and then answered it. cortes wrote: And please spare us the royal "we". I'm not using the royal we. Sometimes there are more than one of us on this side of this interface. And there are many others witnessing these forums. And it is reasonable that 'I' and 'we' are disturbed by your unwillingness to answer these straightforward questions. I/we do not understand your vague notion of justice. It appears to be some form of dictatorship, or of might over right. These questions are important to clarifying where you are coming from in your general philosophy. Here is your 'opportunity' to clarify your stance from the example of WW11 that you introduced: Glypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany: (1)are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? (2)Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? (cortes wrote: the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict.) Therefore: Glypt wrote: (3) If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? " Edited by Glypt on 05/29/08 - 08:57 AM

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 09:12 AM:	#170
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: You began by denying that the judicial worldview was a grand utopian one insisting, instead, that it was merely a mechanism for resolving disputes. But as I tested your claim you have added one qualification after another until we have finally arrived at...a grand utopian judicial worldview. I will try and encapsulate the same thing we've been stating throughout these forums. The changes in the word use does not alter meaning for different words can mean the same thing. That does not constitute new qualifications. You have been adding one qualification after another so that you are no longer presenting anything that we would recognize as "justice" but instead are presenting the very utopian social justice that I was pointing to in the first place. Glypt wrote: You're wrong in practically every aspect of your conception of justice and its relation to the law. No, I have answered each of your claims with real historical counter examples. You have replied to these by pushing ever further toward utopianism. Glypt wrote: Justifiable law comes from just procedure. (I'm assuming you are interested in justice and laws that are thereby justifiable here) Not really, but let's go through the exercise anyway. When in a law just? When it conforms to a higher law such as a Constitution. What you are arguing for now is a utopian concept of justice unanchored from the law. You might as well be arguing for solving cancer with fairy dust. Glypt wrote: A procedure that is not founded in reason… is unreasonable… unreasonable laws would not be just if its founding process were illegitimate, mirroring thereby the reflexive nature of ethicality and morality: An action cannot be ethical if based upon immoral principles and the authority by which principles come into being must be ethically enacted...Thus deliberative and discursive procedures entail a criss-cross of such transcendent and immanent relationships involving: reason, respect for human life, and the realities of psychological and sociological systems. Everyone has their own reason for voting as they do. If you want to pass judgement on the world, be my guest. Meanwhile, in the real world, laws will be enacted by the law of the jungle, whether by kings or majorities in democracy. Justice will be administered by the vote of judges and juries after a law of the jungle adversorial procedure that pits one side against the other. And all of that will be, at best, a footnote to the actual lives of most people who manage to live and work with others without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Glypt wrote: The ancient notions to which you adhere are irrelevant to modern life. They speak of an age of barbarism where might was always right, where strength alone decided truth and morality, when kings and dictators used their subjects without regard for their intrinsic value as individual persons. In comparatively recent times such objectifying and dehumanising of people and thereby the absence of justice are sometimes revisited...e.g. in such regimes as Nazi Germany. Your casual dismissal of reality is revealing. If you want to expend your life chasing a utopian vision, be my guest. But you might want to read up on what happend when Communism sought to remake society to be more "reasonable". I prefer to take people as they are, in all their unreason and barbarity. I prefer living in the real world. Edited by cortes on 05/29/08 - 09:16 AM
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 09:19 AM:	#171
Glypt wrote: No you haven't you have been very vague throughout. I don't disapprove, but you have not given an answer to these questions, you have merely constructed one of your own and then answered it....I/we do not understand your vague notion of justice. I explained to you my concept of justice: a just world is one in which I, Hernan Cortes, am worshiped as a living god. You have asked whether a particular outcome was just. I have explained to you how that principle of justice would be applied to the situation. A Nazi victory would be just if and only if the Nazis submitted to my will. However, I have also explained to you that I do not regard justice as a worthy goal. My principles relate, inistead, to opportunity. So you won't advance your understanding of my principles by asking about my concept of justice.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 167

Posted 05/29/08 - 10:04 AM:	#172
glypt wrote: Many innocent people, men, women and children died at the hands of both the allied forces and Nazi Germany: (1)are you seriously suggesting that we conduct legal procedings between people as if we were engaged in continual global war? (2)Is that your idea of a justice worth pursuing? cortes wrote: the strong defeating the weak is a resolution of conflict. Therefore: (3) If Nazi Germany had won the war, by becoming stronger, would justice have been served? 1: We are. You have the Allied victory to thank for that. 2: It seems so, mine is not so different (he thinks all should believe his view, I think all should believe their own view). 3: They didn't. Was justice served by the Allies winning? They were stronger, the conflict was resolved. 60 million people died in the Soviet Union due to political repression. China has yet to become a great and wonderful place to live (they are making strides, well, baby steps). Germany was split in two, separating families. Dresden was burned to the ground. Tokyo was incinerated. Wars are now fought in proxy, with all of the wonderful 4th generation warfare accompanying this move. "World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Is this your idea of justice? The quote in there is Albert Einstein.
It is what it is.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 11:40 AM:	#173
cortes wrote: You have been adding one qualification after another so that you are no longer presenting anything that we would recognize as "justice" but instead are presenting the very utopian social justice that I was pointing to in the first place. Not really, what has been presented is not social justice, but political justice, that informs the law. Without aknowledgement of which you would fail to be free to function in society unless you were willing to be criminalised. cortes wrote: When in a law just? When it conforms to a higher law such as a Constitution. Quite, and constitutions in democratic countries emerge from the interdependent theory and reflexive understanding previously related. It is standard theory that any undergraduate studying political theory is made aware, the relation of principle and procedure. The people as self-governed through their political representatives. cortes wrote: What you are arguing for now is a utopian concept of justice unanchored from the law. You might as well be arguing for solving cancer with fairy dust. I'm not arguing for anything utopian, the dependencies I refer already exists, they must exist out of logical necessity. cortes wrote: … laws will be enacted by the law of the jungle...[regarding]... majorities in democracy. Yes, I agree that there is a problem of scale in representing everyones interests. But its hardly the law of the jungle. Gradually democratic access to lobby our representatives is improving if citizens are prepared to make the effort to assemble coherent arguments. In my country at least, minority groups have succeeded in getting their voices heard and the laws adjusted to fit their different needs. cortes wrote: Justice will be administered by the vote of judges and juries after a law of the jungle adversorial procedure that pits one side against the other. And all of that will be, at best, a footnote to the actual lives of most people who manage to live and work with others without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Voting has to be justified within the context of public reasons. You are looking through the wrong end of a very cheap telescope and have an abysmal understanding of juridical notions. Unless such laws, that are framed by our representatives are the result of public reason and open to appeal at every stage of their formation any so-called' laws would not be workable. The constituting of law must engage the theory I have outlined for you otherwise it would be deemed illegitimate. It is the fact that most people are not in courtrooms that demonstrate the reasonableness of the law. If laws were built upon your ridiculous notion of might is right there would be continual revolt. cortes wrote: Your casual dismissal of reality is revealing. If you want to expend your life chasing a utopian vision, be my guest. But you might want to read up on what happend when Communism sought to remake society to be more "reasonable". I haven't a clue what all that means, it is unrelated to anything I've reported. cortes wrote: I prefer to take people as they are, in all their unreason and barbarity. I prefer living in the real world. Oh yes where you are a living god living outside the legal system.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 01:02 PM:	#174
Glypt wrote: Not really, what has been presented is not social justice, but political justice, that informs the law. Without aknowledgement of which you would fail to be free to function in society unless you were willing to be criminalised. Nonsense. In fact, nothing better illustrates the utopianism of your judicial worldview. If my goal is to avoid being criminalized, then I will obey the law. It doesn't matter what the law is, whether it is "fair" or "just". In fact, to be even more precise, to avoid being criminalized what I need to do is avoid criminal conviction. That means conforming to actual judical process, regardless of whether it is biased or not, and in the even that I find myself in a courtroom, making an aggressive case on my behalf, regardless of whether or not I did what I was accused of doing. When you can understand why you are mistaken on your above point, you will have grasped the difference between your utopian justialism and opportunism. Glypt wrote: Quite, and constitutions in democratic countries emerge from the interdependent theory and reflexive understanding previously related. It is standard theory that any undergraduate studying political theory is made aware, the relation of principle and procedure. The people as self-governed through their political representatives. No, constitutions emerge from the law of the jungle, war and other metapolitical outcomes in which one faction defeated another. Glypt wrote: I'm not arguing for anything utopian, the dependencies I refer already exists, they must exist out of logical necessity. Every instance where I have cited real life situations you have demurred to uptopian ideals. There is no "must exist", there is only exist or don't exist. And "reasonble justice" does not exist. It's not even meaningful. Glypt wrote: Yes, I agree that there is a problem of scale in representing everyones interests. But its hardly the law of the jungle. Gradually democratic access to lobby our representatives is improving if citizens are prepared to make the effort to assemble coherent arguments. In my country at least, minority groups have succeeded in getting their voices heard and the laws adjusted to fit their different needs. I'll bet even in your country most people go about their daily lives with little regard for the political processes. Political processes, like the poor, will always be with us but you seem to have deifed them. Glypt wrote: Voting has to be justified within the context of public reasons. "Has to be?" People get along just fine voting every which way. People vote for the candidate with the whitest teeth or the most celebrity endorsements. If there is anything worse than a democracy with people voting it is someone trying to impose their own view of what is "reasonable" upon them. In Turkey, for example, the army has a de facto veto over the voters whenever they make "unreasonable" choices. Glypt wrote: You are looking through the wrong end of a very cheap telescope and have an abysmal understanding of juridical notions. Unless such laws, that are framed by our representatives are the result of public reason and open to appeal at every stage of their formation any so-called' laws would not be workable. Even stupid laws are workable. Courts enforce them all the time. Try obeying just the laws you think are "reasonable" and see how long you stay out of jail. Glypt wrote: The constituting of law must engage the theory I have outlined for you otherwise it would be deemed illegitimate. It is the fact that most people are not in courtrooms that demonstrate the reasonableness of the law. If laws were built upon your ridiculous notion of might is right there would be continual revolt. "Must"? No it doesn't. All that is required is a majority faction. The fact that most people are not in the courtroom demonstrates that people are afraid of going to jail. Glypt wrote: Oh yes where you are a living god living outside the legal system. That would be nice but I'm not holding my breath wating for it.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 06:37 PM:	#175
Cortes wrote: I've switched to using "treasure" per jdrw's suggestion. Changing a word does not add clarity to your principle. A principle is nothing more than a perspective, and what you are presenting in your perspective of life. You perceive life to be a gift, and something to treasure. I perceive it to be marvelous. Maybe we have the same perspective. Maybe you are saying the same thing I am saying with the use of different words. Most people have a certain idea of what a 'gift' is. You may have a different idea. To bring clarity to the most people reading your principles, I think it would be wise to drop the words 'gift', 'treasure', 'deserved and undeserved'. Cortes wrote: The only moral judgement implied is the valuation of the gift/treasure which I noted above. Are you not really saying that you perceive your life to be valuable to you? Why not drop all this gift/treasure terminology and just state it simply? Cortes wrote: I have found from my experience and my reading of others' experiences that the opportunistic worldview is the superior worldview for a variety of reasons. I am seeking to capture that in a set of principles. Believing the opportunistic worldview is better for people does not require you to define life as a gift/treasure or state it is 'deserved' or 'undeserved'. Why the unclear two principles? Why not just state your belief about opportunity and then present the reasons?

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.