Philosophy of Conquistadorianism: Philosophy Forums

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

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism
Otherwise known as Opportunism

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

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 06:49 PM:	#176
optrader wrote: 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'. 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? As Jdrw noted, "treasure" avoids the problems that kept tripping you up. optrader wrote: 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? There is more to making a case than stating it simply. You'll recall that you, yourself, kept rejecting my simple statements in favor of much more complicated descriptions. The word "treasure" (or "gift") is more emotionally descriptive and better serves the purpose of emphasizing things that I intend to emphasize. "Treasure" (or "gift") has rhetorical value. While I am interested in testing these ideas with philosophy addicts, the main audience will be people who have only the vaguest recollection of who Plato was. So while I prefer that the arguments are sound, I am disinclined to tailor the wording to a philosophy audience. Your preference for literalism is atypical.
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 - 06:51 PM:	#177
litkey wrote: 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? This is a fascinating question. We do know that we have a circadian rythym and our feelings and mood changes during the day depending on the time of day. It may be that the moon affects us slightly. We know that changes in barometric pressure affects people with arthritis. We have no idea of knowing just how many 'influences' there are. In making a decision, could the time of day play a major role? What about blood sugar levels? Levels of serotonin in the brain? Hormone inbalances? Fluctuations in thyroid hormone levels? Could magnetic fields and/or radio waves affect our mind and our decisions? It could be that just at the point of making a decision, one of these factors is just enough to tip the balance and alter our decision. In effect, a very small event could cause a big change.

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 07:06 PM:	#178
cortes wrote: Your preference for literalism is atypical. I simply prefer that people say what they mean in the most simple terminology. You will have to admit that no one on this forum has been satisfied with the way you have presented your principles. Say what you mean and mean what you say and say it in the most concise way. I think everyone can understand what I am saying here on this forum. But, we have all been having trouble with your principles. I think most everyone has given up on trying to argue with you about them, because they recognize that their efforts are futile. I have been trying to make sense of your principles. I have tried substituting words, but that did not work. There does not appear to be anyway that I can change your principles to increase their clarity. And, just changing 'gift' to 'treasure' is not a solution. You will have to phrase your principles in a clear, concise manner in order to make your case. You have simply thrown some illogical statements at us and then expect us to follow your thinking. That is not going to happen. Your continued insistance that they make sense, when everyone is telling you differently, should be a wake-up call to you that you need to work on those principles. I think I have tried my best to comprehend your perspective, and I have not been able to do so. Therefore, I cannot follow your thinking further in this thread. Edited by optrader on 05/31/08 - 05:26 AM

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 05/29/08 - 07:08 PM:	#179
Coolazice....what do you think about my last post to Cortes?

litkey
Kant's retarded son

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

Posted 05/30/08 - 04:06 AM:	#180
optrader wrote: litkey wrote: 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? This is a fascinating question. We do know that we have a circadian rythym and our feelings and mood changes during the day depending on the time of day. It may be that the moon affects us slightly. We know that changes in barometric pressure affects people with arthritis. We have no idea of knowing just how many 'influences' there are. In making a decision, could the time of day play a major role? What about blood sugar levels? Levels of serotonin in the brain? Hormone inbalances? Fluctuations in thyroid hormone levels? Could magnetic fields and/or radio waves affect our mind and our decisions? It could be that just at the point of making a decision, one of these factors is just enough to tip the balance and alter our decision. In effect, a very small event could cause a big change. YEs, although don't start this type of talk with Cortes, I think his brain was frozen back in 366BC, and only came to life over the past few weeks - its quirky though, I suppose. Indeed, a friend of mine studied physics and he would tell me the times of the day when it was best to eat, sleep, read, excercise etc., the body, has its own Rhythms. For example, can you choose to eat when you aren't hungry? Choose to sleep ? Choose to excerice? It seems the brain tells us when we are "ready" to choose. Yes, I have heard of the moon having an affect on us, although I have to say I am ignorant and wouldn't attempt speculation, although when I woke up this morning there was a dead deer under my arm, and scratch marks all over the walls. hmn. =)
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 05/30/08 - 04:29 PM:	#181
Litkey, I did not jump into some of the discussion in this thread concerning determinism, free will, and randomness. I think we can get a glimpse of something a bit more complex than simple determinism or randomness by examining chaos and complexity theory. There are probably so many influences producting an event that it would be impossible to determine what caused what. This leaves us to deal with generalities when we come to determinism. There is nothing wrong with generalities, but they can only go so far. There may be a butterfly in China flapping its wings that causes a tornado in Kansas. But, how would we ever be able to determine it, and what other thousand influences affected the creation of that tornado in Kansas.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 06/01/08 - 03:26 AM:	#182
Absolutely Relative wrote: 3: Was justice served by the Allies winning? No, there was a resolution of conflict - the lesser (much lesser) of two evils - (1) the continued injustice of Nazism (2) the injustice suffered by innocent victims as a result of war. It is wrong that innocent people suffer and innocent people constitutute both sides of any war - hence there is no 'formally understood' (as distinct from homespun ) notion of justice that may be derived from war. It is an absurd, immature, and unsubtle assertion that insists that 'just' procedures and 'war' constitute the same thing. Absolutely Relative wrote: ...Is this your idea of justice? No. To be clear, I have not been putting forward 'my' idea of justice. The points being presented in my/our explanation are logically retreived from analysing the meaning of the word justice, which entails a complex relation of principle and procedure; ends and means respectively.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/01/08 - 06:57 AM:	#183
Glypt wrote: To be clear, I have not been putting forward 'my' idea of justice. The points being presented in my/our explanation are logically retreived from analysing the meaning of the word justice, which entails a complex relation of principle and procedure; ends and means respectively. To be clear, we can divide concepts of justice into two categories: Conventional Justice and Cosmic Justice. Conventional Justice is the plain application of the law. It does not judge the law except in terms of other, higher laws (e.g. constitutions). It is the most basic application of the law to a given situation. This a meaningful, valuable and practical concept that is a servant of the rule of law. Cosmic justice is a concept of justice unhinged from the law. It is a belief that the cosmos ought to be fair in some vague, subjective sense. It is of little value other than as a fig leaf to cover subjective opinions about moraltity with a veneer of respectability. It is most often employed by socialists pursuing an even distribution of outcomes but is sometimes also employed by meritocritists seeking to remove luck from life. Opportunism is an alternative to Cosmic Justice but compatible with Conventional Justice. Edited by cortes on 06/01/08 - 07:32 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 06/01/08 - 04:19 PM:	#184
I ran across this delicious quote: "Part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity." - Lestor Maddox
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 06/02/08 - 12:27 AM:	#185
Cortes writes:"Conventional Justice is the plain application of the law" For the conception of justice to be met, the laws themselves are subject to due process...which entails an interdependency between procedural justice (legitimacy) and the principles of substantive justice. Legitimacy is an ethical procedure when justified by moral grounds (e.g. the reciprocal duty of respect for autonomous agents). Simmilarly the moral principles of justice gain their legitimacy through the ethical nature of procedures ( e.g. as found in acts of mutual recognition and inclusivity in free and equal dialogue) Clearly, unjust laws cannot provide justice. Unless the law is the product of such interdependency the conditions of justice within such laws are not met. The constitutions of modern democracies are subject to such internal conditions, hence various doubts over questions of legitimacy have led to amendments to the constitution. The framing of such amendments must, in turn, be enacted with regard to legimate procedures. Indeed, 'laws' are the product of any system of justice, that is by logical necessity - a relation of procedure and principle. Bad laws may sometimes be revealed as deficient, in special cases, during the juridical operations of a trial a jury's verdict (from legitimate procedures) may set a precedent by which the argument for a change to such laws is strengthened and put forward for debate (legitmate procedure) by the representatives (voted for by legitimate electoral procedures) of public reason that meet in parliament to discuss questions of legitimacy. Such debates are in turn subject to the principles or rules of juridical practice, parliamentary debate, and political elections. Even within, what we might perceive as unjust systems, such as the dictatorships that Cortes seems to favour, we can say the law/rules of government is the product of an internal relation between the monological deliberations of the despot's desires or mental processes (procedures) and the principles of brain states by which such reflection is constituted. But in that sense the only justice is that warped notion as perceived by the dictator him/herself. Alternatively, it is remotely possible that where a dictator's desires match with that of his/her subjects a form of justice obtains but as previously explained such laws as exist are still the product of some form of the relation of procedure and principle. These relations that underpin the notion of justice are real and are practiced daily in the world.

optrader
Graduate

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

Posted 06/02/08 - 03:37 AM:	#186
Cortes: quote: "Part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity." - Lestor Maddox If people are treated equal under the law, then differences between people become an asset. Each person, regardless of their education, wealth, or status has the 'opportunity' to reach whatever goal they set. This is the greatness of a society in which each person is treated equal and left alone to pursue their dreams. Socialism is the opposite of this. It leads to mediocrity. Now, 'equal under the law', is just that and nothing more. This does not mean that people are 'entitled' to anything. They are not entitled to welfare. They are only entitled to soc. sec based on the amount of money taken out of their checks. They are not entitled to medicare except for the amount deducted from their checks. The problem with social programs lies in their reducing opportunity. Just look at a lot of the welfare recipients, they are locked into welfare and poverty. People relying on soc sec don't save money like they should for old age and they miss the opportunity to excel at their job or whatever endeavor they undertake.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/02/08 - 07:39 AM:	#187
Glypt wrote: Cortes writes:"Conventional Justice is the plain application of the law" For the conception of justice to be met, the laws themselves are subject to due process...which entails an interdependency between procedural justice (legitimacy) and the principles of substantive justice. This is unnecessary but is commonly the case. All that is required for conventional justice is that the laws be enforced as written and understood. Due process is a means to that end, a method of insuring that the laws are enforced as written. Glypt wrote: Legitimacy is an ethical procedure when justified by moral grounds (e.g. the reciprocal duty of respect for autonomous agents). Simmilarly the moral principles of justice gain their legitimacy through the ethical nature of procedures ( e.g. as found in acts of mutual recognition and inclusivity in free and equal dialogue) Anything "justified by moral grounds" will suffer all of the attendant problems of moral determiniation. People may argue whether or not abortion is morally right but it can be made clear one way or another whether it is legal or illegal. Glypt wrote: Clearly, unjust laws cannot provide justice. Unless the law is the product of such interdependency the conditions of justice within such laws are not met. Clearly to call laws "unjust" requires introducing ambiguos, subjective moral claims into the determiniation of justice. Glypt wrote: The constitutions of modern democracies are subject to such internal conditions, hence various doubts over questions of legitimacy have led to amendments to the constitution. The framing of such amendments must, in turn, be enacted with regard to legimate procedures. Some constitutions provide formal methods of amdendment, some do not. In some cases constitutional law is made on the battlefield, in other cases by voting. Glypt wrote: TIndeed, 'laws' are the product of any system of justice, that is by logical necessity... Nope, as noted previously, laws are made by the sword. Glypt wrote: Even within, what we might perceive as unjust systems... No doubt. But the problem is that each person perceives things differently. That is why laws are created.
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 06/02/08 - 09:49 AM:	#188
Glypt wrote: Cortes writes:"Conventional Justice is the plain application of the law" For the conception of justice to be met, the laws themselves are subject to due process...which entails an interdependency between procedural justice (legitimacy) and the principles of substantive justice. Cortes writes:"This [ viz Glypt: laws entail an interdependency between procedural justice (legitimacy) and the principles of substantive justice] is unnecessary but is commonly the case…All that is required for conventional justice is that the laws be enforced as written and understood. Due process is a means to that end, a method of insuring that the laws are enforced as written." Due process obtains throughout juridical structures, including checks upon the legitimacy of procedure. It is unnecesary for anyone to state that fact, it is logically entailed that any law requires some form of procedural recognition. Even a tyrant who makes it up as he goes along is thereby engaged with a deliberative mono-logic, as procedure, before writing down the law his meagre electro-chemical internal procedures might entail how well it suits his interests or grand designs. All of this has been previously dealt with. Cortes writes:" "Anything "justified by moral grounds" will suffer all of the attendant problems of moral determiniation. People may argue whether or not abortion is morally right but it can be made clear one way or another whether it is legal or illegal." You have just confirmed the procedure and principle interdependency by which law making is legitimised. The public arguments may have their roots in society and find representation politically and in subsequent law making. Cortes writes:"Clearly to call laws "unjust" requires introducing ambiguos, subjective moral claims into the determiniation of justice." There is nothing either ambiguous or subjective about it. We are discussing the necessary internal relationship that leads to the founding of a law not a prediction of outcome or other specified declaration. Cortes writes:"… In some cases constitutional law is made on the battlefield, in other cases by voting…[ ]… laws are made by the sword." Battlefields and voting are examples of procedures that lead to law making. You can't have it both ways either the law is like your 'immaculate conception-type' model, something that appears like magic, mysteriously written down for no good reason… or they result from some legitimising procedure, however flawed that might be constituted. Cortes writes: "But the problem is that each person perceives things differently." Yes, you are nearly there. Cortes writes: "That is why laws are created." Hooray! And how do we accommodate disparate interests? By reconciling private and public interests in the cooriginal nature of substantive principle and legitimising procedure and the juridical structures entailed therein. Congratulations, soon you will come to understand the difference between reason and rationality. Private and public autonomy and how that relates to issues of personhood.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/02/08 - 10:17 AM:	#189
optrader wrote: Cortes: quote: "Part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity." - Lestor Maddox If people are treated equal under the law, then differences between people become an asset. Each person, regardless of their education, wealth, or status has the 'opportunity' to reach whatever goal they set. This is the greatness of a society in which each person is treated equal and left alone to pursue their dreams. Socialism is the opposite of this. It leads to mediocrity. Now, 'equal under the law', is just that and nothing more. This does not mean that people are 'entitled' to anything. They are not entitled to welfare. They are only entitled to soc. sec based on the amount of money taken out of their checks. They are not entitled to medicare except for the amount deducted from their checks. The problem with social programs lies in their reducing opportunity. Just look at a lot of the welfare recipients, they are locked into welfare and poverty. People relying on soc sec don't save money like they should for old age and they miss the opportunity to excel at their job or whatever endeavor they undertake. The rule of law and conventional justice (which is what equality under the law really is about) has proven to be a valuable social tool. Few would dispute this though that does not in and of itself resolve the issue. Opportunism frames the question simply: how do I wish things to be and what levers do I have available to bring that about? If Joe expects social security to bail him out in retirement, that's Joe's problem. If Joe wants to make it my problem he has to present me with an offer that is of interest to me.
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 06/02/08 - 10:39 AM:	#190
Glypt wrote: Due process obtains throughout juridical structures, including checks upon the legitimacy of procedure. Due process is whatever the law prescribes it to be. It is that process which is due under the law in order to enforce the law. Glypt wrote: You have just confirmed the procedure and principle interdependency by which law making is legitimised. Nope, in fact I pointed exactly to the opposite. Glypt wrote: There is nothing either ambiguous or subjective about it. We are discussing the necessary internal relationship that leads to the founding of a law not a prediction of outcome or other specified declaration. As I pointed out previously, laws may be founded by as little as a conquering king. Glypt wrote: Battlefields and voting are examples of procedures that lead to law making. You can't have it both ways either the law is like your 'immaculate conception-type' model, something that appears like magic, mysteriously written down for no good reason… or they result from some legitimising procedure, however flawed that might be constituted. I have been pointing you to the process of law making from the start. The winner makes the rules. Glypt wrote: And how do we accommodate disparate interests? By reconciling private and public interests in the cooriginal nature of substantive principle and legitimising procedure and the juridical structures entailed therein. You may call this accomodation and reconciliation if you wish. When one side defeats another on the battlefield, the losers are "accomodated". When one side wins in a political process, the results are similar. No need for judicial structures. War is a legitimizing procedure.
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 06/02/08 - 12:43 PM:	#191
Cortes, I cannot comprehend all this stuff about rule of law and conventional justice. When I say that each person should be treated equally under the law, I am saying that if a person commits a crime, he should not be treated any different than anyone else regardless of his social status or wealth. Laws should be uniform with prescibed sentences for each type crime. Of course, our judicial system is nothing like that; it is a mess, a hodge-podge, crap shoot, and how good a lawyer you have. As far as opportunism and the guy expecting soc sec to bail him out in retirement, I agree that it is his problem. And, as you say, if he wants me to make it my problem then he will have to offer me something.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/02/08 - 01:27 PM:	#192
optrader wrote: Cortes, I cannot comprehend all this stuff about rule of law and conventional justice. When I say that each person should be treated equally under the law, I am saying that if a person commits a crime, he should not be treated any different than anyone else regardless of his social status or wealth. Laws should be uniform with prescibed sentences for each type crime. Of course, our judicial system is nothing like that; it is a mess, a hodge-podge, crap shoot, and how good a lawyer you have. What you are describing is Conventional Justice. You are not judging the law but judging according to the law. (And as you note, societies have their hands full just trying to accomplish this.) There is a very interesting and worthwhile discussion to be had on why such a concept has proven useful throughout history, even as it has been unevenly applied, from well before the advent of democracy. This is not the concept of justice that Glypt is promoting. He is promoting Cosmic Justice. He wants to judge the legitimacy of law (which phrase alone ought to arouse suspicion). He is using "just" as a synonym for "good" and "unjust" for "evil" thus attempting to appropriate a well understood concept in the service of ill defined morals. Glypt proposes that justice resolve conflicts without realizing that people conflict over what is good and thus what is just. That is like asking alcoholics to decide what the legal limit for DUI should be. optrader wrote: As far as opportunism and the guy expecting soc sec to bail him out in retirement, I agree that it is his problem. And, as you say, if he wants me to make it my problem then he will have to offer me something. Agreed. But behind this agreement is the alternative to Cosmic Justice: consent and war.
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 06/02/08 - 03:20 PM:	#193
Cortes, just what is cosmic justice? Laws are the 'mores' of society. In an Arab country, a thief might get his hand cut off, but just be fined in America. Who is to judge which is the most appropriate law? The simple answer: there is no higher authority than people and the majority view of the people. To apply terminology to a law as 'good', 'unjust', or 'evil', is simply to have a different view than the people that 'make' laws. You are correct in saying that 'people conflict over what is good'. In fact, this is probably the biggest factor in any society. Most states have laws to prohibit the sale of marihauna, but a lot of people think it should be as readily available as tobacco. And, they have a good argument, because tobacco is a deadly substance. And, in my view it should be a higher crime to make and distribute tobacco than marihauna. Some people think the morning after pill causes an abortion and some say it just prevents conception, and it all depends on your perspective of what abortion is, and there is a hot debate about the whole subject with each group taking sides. There is no 'external' judge to say which is correct, what is good or what is evil. Laws are human creations and are therefore subject to the whims of the human minds.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/02/08 - 03:26 PM:	#194
optrader wrote: Cortes, just what is cosmic justice? Laws are the 'mores' of society. In an Arab country, a thief might get his hand cut off, but just be fined in America. Who is to judge which is the most appropriate law? The simple answer: there is no higher authority than people and the majority view of the people. To apply terminology to a law as 'good', 'unjust', or 'evil', is simply to have a different view than the people that 'make' laws. This is my point. It would be far better for people such as Glypt to drop the misuse of the term "just" and simply say, more directly, this law is good and that one is evil. But they won't for obvious reasons. optrader wrote: There is no 'external' judge to say which is correct, what is good or what is evil. Well, maybe there is an external judge but he's keeping a tight lip. In any case, Cosmic Justice is a useless concept. optrader wrote: Laws are human creations and are therefore subject to the whims of the human minds. As I noted to Glypt, even in a democracy, it is the law of the jungle with the majority riding roughshod over the minority.
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 06/02/08 - 07:01 PM:	#195
Cortes: "Cosmic Justice is a useless concept." Cosmic justice is no more definitive than 'existence is undeserved'. Cortes: "even in a democracy, it is the law of the jungle with the majority riding roughshod over the minority. " I don't agree. If this were completely true, then the Indians would have all been killed, and blacks would still be slaves. A society is a bit more complex than you think. Just look at Western civilization and how laws have changed over the centuries. The population is treated more equally by their judicial system than in the past. Is it perfect? No! It is still a mess, but a more equal mess.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/02/08 - 08:43 PM:	#196
optrader wrote: Cosmic justice is no more definitive than 'existence is undeserved'. Cosmic justice is justice without law. optrader wrote: cortes wrote: "even in a democracy, it is the law of the jungle with the majority riding roughshod over the minority. " I don't agree. If this were completely true, then the Indians would have all been killed, and blacks would still be slaves. A society is a bit more complex than you think. Just look at Western civilization and how laws have changed over the centuries. The population is treated more equally by their judicial system than in the past. Is it perfect? No! It is still a mess, but a more equal mess. But look at history. The American Indians were all but wiped out. It only stopped when they were relegated to worthless land. And it took a war to free the American slaves and the actual emancipation was more a tactical byproduct of that war. I do not mean to imply that there is no compassion, I an not cynical. But there is a tendency to shrink from reality when, for example, democratic processes are not recognized for what they are, a nonviolent form of conflict. As I pointed out to Glypt, even the judicial system itself relies on adversarial processes in the courtroom.
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 06/03/08 - 01:38 AM:	#197
Cortes wrote: "Due process is whatever the law prescribes it to be. It is that process which is due under the law in order to enforce the law." This has already been refuted, on several occasions. Laws do not appear out of thin air. A law must be made. The making of laws requires some form of procedural legitimacy. That legitimacy is tested in their making and in their practice. Cortes wrote: "Nope, in fact I pointed exactly to the opposite." Once you think about it properly you will realise that you are mistaken, see below. Cortes wrote: "As I pointed out previously, laws may be founded by as little as a conquering king." The founding of a law is tantamount to a reflexive interdependent procedure...coming before legislation... as does all methods of legitimacy, by logical necessity. Now you are not going to tell me that Kings/Queens found laws that already exist. Of course not, there obtains both deliberation and disquistion. A poor king does not take into account the needs of the kingdom upon which he also depends. Cortes wrote: "I have been pointing you to the process of law making from the start. The winner makes the rules…" In the first place no singular entity in western society makes the law. And even if we imagine a single ruler his/her laws must take his/her subjects into account and the psychological processes he/she adopts are derived from the world, its language, its logic, its influences and various other contingencies. History is strewn with unwise rulers whose personal procedures have been ill judged and they have been overthrown accordingly. Law making is 'a process' incorporating socio-political structures at various levels of understanding as described ad nauseum. Cortes wrote:"No need for judicial structures. War is a legitimizing procedure." Such a position is both trivial and redundant, for all the reasons previously stated on various occasion. Cortes wrote: "This is not the concept of justice that Glypt is promoting. He is promoting Cosmic Justice. He wants to judge the legitimacy of law (which phrase alone ought to arouse suspicion). He is using "just" as a synonym for "good" and "unjust" for "evil" thus attempting to appropriate a well understood concept in the service of ill defined morals. " I would suggest that it provides a clearer argument if you desist from misrepresenting the facts of the matter and falsely attributing them. Cortes wrote: "Glypt proposes that justice resolve conflicts without realizing that people conflict over what is good and thus what is just." I've explained the opposite and proposed that ideally justice is unbiased, by necessity. Cortes wrote: "That is like asking alcoholics to decide what the legal limit for DUI should be." Not really. Cortes wrote: "As I pointed out to Glypt, even the judicial system itself relies on adversarial processes in the courtroom." Which adds nothing to the points being discussion. Firstly, a contest of reason is merely the means by which the best argument is revealed. This may or may not favour the case of the defendant or the plaintiff or the case might be dismissed for lack of evidence or a mistrial may later be deemed just. In any case, most outcomes are open to further appeal. No one is suggesting that in practice justice is always done, or is in any way perfect...it is and always has been a work in progress. However, that progress may be secured by developing a relational understanding between theories of justice and theories of legitimacy. I would suggest that we do not want a system that aspires so low as the model that Cortes has previously presented. Ideas that equivocate the brutish contestations of war with attempts to realise fairness and represent diverse interests are untennable. When one looks at the case Cortes presents we see a very thin and rather simplistic notion that characterises as war like conflict the complex disquisitions of socio-political events. He says that the universe is unfair I say that is good reason to bring fairness into being. Our self-awareness entails we can empathise with the plight of others. We can perceive there are others enough like ourselves to earn our respect and we can choose to aspire to treat them as we we would be treated ourselves...or we can regress and seek to dominate each other. It is also part of our human capacity to develop a just world, to position ourselves objectively, as well as perfecting our own self-interest subjectively. It is my opinion that seeking to avoid mutual destruction is a sign of a species' maturity. Each individual is mortal but the human spirit is potententially immortal as an extended self constituted in prolonging human civilisation. With tongue in cheek, I would suggest the latter is likely to be the only godlike opportunity available to Cortes. The law for all people can regulate our conflicts and provide channels for adjustments to the law. Interests and opinions differ, of course they do, and under the law objective evidence and reasoned argumentation may be presented to make a case both in the courtroom and in legislative trials that shaped such laws. That is why a reflexive and interdependent understand has to obtain between procedure and principle.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/03/08 - 08:56 AM:	#198
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: "Due process is whatever the law prescribes it to be. It is that process which is due under the law in order to enforce the law." This has already been refuted, on several occasions. Laws do not appear out of thin air. A law must be made. The making of laws requires some form of procedural legitimacy. That legitimacy is tested in their making and in their practice. I'm guessing its turtles all the way down. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: "As I pointed out previously, laws may be founded by as little as a conquering king." The founding of a law is tantamount to a reflexive interdependent procedure...coming before legislation... as does all methods of legitimacy, by logical necessity. Now you are not going to tell me that Kings/Queens found laws that already exist. Of course not, there obtains both deliberation and disquistion. A poor king does not take into account the needs of the kingdom upon which he also depends. Minimally speaking, it is sufficient for a king to slam his fist on the table and announce his will. That is law. Now we should probably include the warfare that went before to make the king the king but that is the law of the jungle. Glypt wrote: In the first place no singular entity in western society makes the law. And even if we imagine a single ruler his/her laws must take his/her subjects into account and the psychological processes he/she adopts are derived from the world, its language, its logic, its influences and various other contingencies. History is strewn with unwise rulers whose personal procedures have been ill judged and they have been overthrown accordingly. Law making is 'a process' incorporating socio-political structures at various levels of understanding as described ad nauseum. This "process" is one of the law of the jungle. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: "No need for judicial structures. War is a legitimizing procedure." Such a position is both trivial and redundant, for all the reasons previously stated on various occasion. It is a fact of life. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: "This is not the concept of justice that Glypt is promoting. He is promoting Cosmic Justice. He wants to judge the legitimacy of law (which phrase alone ought to arouse suspicion). He is using "just" as a synonym for "good" and "unjust" for "evil" thus attempting to appropriate a well understood concept in the service of ill defined morals. " I would suggest that it provides a clearer argument if you desist from misrepresenting the facts of the matter and falsely attributing them. It is an accurate description. See above. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: Glypt proposes that justice resolve conflicts without realizing that people conflict over what is good and thus what is just. I've explained the opposite and proposed that ideally justice is unbiased, by necessity. "ideally" meaning not in reality. Ideally everyone would recognize that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: As I pointed out to Glypt, even the judicial system itself relies on adversarial processes in the courtroom. Which adds nothing to the points being discussion. It informs us of the reality that "law of the jungle" is intertwined throughout human experience. Glypt wrote: Firstly, a contest of reason is merely the means by which the best argument is revealed. This may or may not favour the case of the defendant or the plaintiff or the case might be dismissed for lack of evidence or a mistrial may later be deemed just. In any case, most outcomes are open to further appeal. No one is suggesting that in practice justice is always done, or is in any way perfect...it is and always has been a work in progress. A jury is not constrained by reason. Lawyers recognize this. Glypt wrote: I would suggest that we do not want a system that aspires so low as the model that Cortes has previously presented. Ideas that equivocate the brutish contestations of war with attempts to realise fairness and represent diverse interests are untennable. When one looks at the case Cortes presents we see a very thin and rather simplistic notion that characterises as war like conflict the complex disquisitions of socio-political events. I am simply pointing to the most obvious counter-examples. They are sufficient for my purpose of refuting your claims. Glypt wrote: He says that the universe is unfair I say that is good reason to bring fairness into being. Thank you for finally admitting what you have initially denied. Now the question is whether Cosmic Justice is worth the trouble. I say "no". Glypt wrote: Our self-awareness entails we can empathise with the plight of others. We can perceive there are others enough like ourselves to earn our respect and we can choose to aspire to treat them as we we would be treated ourselves...or we can regress and seek to dominate each other. We don't need justice for compassion. I can be unfairly compassionate. In fact, to be compasionate is to be unfair. Glypt wrote: It is also part of our human capacity to develop a just world, to position ourselves objectively, as well as perfecting our own self-interest subjectively. It is my opinion that seeking to avoid mutual destruction is a sign of a species' maturity. Each individual is mortal but the human spirit is potententially immortal as an extended self constituted in prolonging human civilisation. With tongue in cheek, I would suggest the latter is likely to be the only godlike opportunity available to Cortes. At last you have admittied that all of this is an opinion. That's a start. What you still fail to recognize is that people have different opinions about what is good and that reason does not resolve those differences of opinion. Glypt wrote: The law for all people can regulate our conflicts and provide channels for adjustments to the law. Interests and opinions differ, of course they do, and under the law objective evidence and reasoned argumentation may be presented to make a case both in the courtroom and in legislative trials that shaped such laws. That is why a reflexive and interdependent understand has to obtain between procedure and principle. Any matter taken to a courtroom is already lost.
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 06/03/08 - 12:14 PM:	#199
Cortes wrote: "Minimally speaking, it is sufficient for a king to slam his fist on the table and announce his will." You've been reading too many fairy tales. Cortes wrote: "This "process" is one of the law of the jungle." And your point is…? Cortes wrote: "It is a fact of life" What is? Cortes wrote: "It is an accurate description." Not really. Cortes wrote: "ideally" meaning not in reality" Please pay attention [Glypt:"No one is suggesting that in practice justice is always done, or is in any way perfect...it is and always has been a work in progress"] Cortes wrote:"Ideally everyone would recognize that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god" Yes so you keep saying. Unfortunately that kind of statement is meaningless. But if it keeps you happy… Cortes wrote: "It informs us of the reality that "law of the jungle" is intertwined throughout human experience." So is constipation.(thought I'd try a Cortesian retort) Cortes wrote: "A jury is not constrained by reason. Lawyers recognize this." Arrant nonsense. Cortes wrote: "I am simply pointing to the most obvious counter-examples. They are sufficient for my purpose of refuting your claims." You've failed to sustain your own ideas let alone refute anyone elses. And for the last time I'm not putting forward 'a claim.' Cortes wrote: "Thank you for finally admitting what you have initially denied." What would that be? Cortes: "We don't need justice for compassion. I can be unfairly compassionate. In fact, to be compasionate is to be unfair." Who has said anything about compassion? Cortes: "At last you have admittied that all of this is an opinion. That's a start." Such an absurd comment underlines your lack of attention. It reveals a desperation to distract attention…It doesn't follow from a single statement of opinion that all other utterances are thereby gathered…hardly worth stating but I live in hope that you gain some intellectual discipline. Cortes wrote: "What you still fail to recognize is that people have different opinions about what is good and that reason does not resolve those differences of opinion" Not another absurd distortion. Cortes wrote: "Any matter taken to a courtroom is already lost." Another meaningless assertion

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 06/03/08 - 02:36 PM:	#200
Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: Ideally everyone would recognize that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god Yes so you keep saying. Unfortunately that kind of statement is meaningless. But if it keeps you happy… It is at least as meaningful as your utopian Cosmic Justice and it has the added benefit of being far more closely aligned with what I want. Glypt wrote: cortes wrote: A jury is not constrained by reason. Lawyers recognize this." Arrant nonsense. This is lawschool 101. You are living in a dreamworld. Glypt wrote: You've failed to sustain your own ideas let alone refute anyone elses. And for the last time I'm not putting forward 'a claim.' Really?! I wish I'd kept count of all the times you used "must".
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.