Philosophy of Conquistadorianism: Philosophy Forums

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

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism
Otherwise known as Opportunism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Last

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2027

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

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 132

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

litkey
Kant's retarded son

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

Posted 05/21/08 - 07:21 AM: Subject: fact vs Belief	#83
cortes wrote: You claimed that sharing a language implied being of the same society when, in fact, there are more non-English English speakers than English English speakers. Yes, this is correct. What I was justifying was the fact that fairness takes place, irrespective of language. And again, "fairness" (in English) is only used to describe what the language users mean. More anon- This is precisely the issue. "People" is a vague term that hides a world of confusion. When Marxists get together they know exactly what each other mean by "fair". Similarly for capitalists. When the two meet they are talking at cross-purposes. Precisely - there is no concrete meaning for "fair"! (as for "hot") --BUT we can gather people together, whether they be capatalists, marxists, or Hindus: and we can get our cross consensus. I agree with you, there will be disagreements, and sometimes disagreements that are polarising: Still, even within the one group (say anarchists) we could achieve our consensus: but this is all speculation of course, and when it comes down to REAL WORLD situations - the "fairness" will have to be fought for tooth and nail...by each person. Uh, I'm referring to the fact that people make claims about fairness and justice between societies, not merely within them. I"m not referring to the word "fair" in the English language. Note that I am not arguing for that concept, merely point out to you grounding fairness in society means giving up claims of justice and fairness across societies. It means giving up the concepts of just war and the injustice of slavery. so, you would argue that slavery was fair? That would be the claim of determinists. Are we going to debate determinism again? Look, you can skirt, dodge, and weave on and on - the fact remains, yours or any other person's ability to choose X,Y,Z is DETERMINED from their experience. this is a fact, there is a difference you know.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:38 AM:	#84
Glypt wrote: Our contingencies for our physical being are indeed far reaching. But you must see that issues of personhood requires society, for the reasons stated. The question that you dodged is this: why did you not think it important to include those "contingencies for our physical being" in your philosophical discussions?[/quote] Glypt wrote: Neither Bill nor Karl can rescue your position. I'm not sure how you think they are relevant. I am simply pointing out that your weak attempt at offering an alternative understanding of "deserved" does not even stand up to the most cursory examination. As a rule of thumb, for purposes of your understanding, imagine that discussion between Gates and Marx on deserving wealth.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:52 AM:	#85
Benkei wrote: The valid conclusion, if we were to accept P1 and P2, is that we cannot have done anything to own our existence and any claims about the unfairness of the world are rhetorical embellishments which we can dismiss outright. The unfairness of the world follows logically: we exist in spite of the fact that we do not deserve to exist. Benkei wrote: Cortes is confused to think that the indifference of these things as to our existence are predominant moral facts but they are a-moral facts and as such have no bearing to the evaluation of life and the person. Where did I make any claims about "morality" in this thread? Benkei wrote: Unless a creative, moral actor is the cause of a thing to gain it's existence, the question of owing or deserving existence is prima facie morally irrelevant (but possibly scientifically interesting and as such valued again). The God hypothesis obviously leads to existence being owed to God, for instance, because God is a creative and moral (e.g. not morally indifferent) actor. Whether or not it is morally irrelevant, it is absolutely relevant to expectations. Regardless of your opinion on God, humans are not owed their existence nor do they owe for their existence. (Which is why I kept directing optrader away from his fixation on God.) Neither is the case that we owe God for our existence (other than in the trivial sense which I previously discussed). There is no outstanding debt that God is waiting to collect from us as Keda rightly understood. Benkei wrote: The slight of hand is to suggest that a-moral facts can have bearing on moral valuation. But what we can know is that each of us who exist value our own existence. If life were a burden, as some have claimed, it is one easily shed by suicide. It therefore follows that we each have something that we value but which we did not deserve.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

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

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2027

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

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

optrader
Graduate

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

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

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/21/08 - 07:29 PM:	#89
optrader wrote: Glypt ...Benkei said... I won't repeat my replies to their confusion. See above. optrader wrote: I have been trying to make the same point as Benkei. Existence is neither deserved or undeserved. No moral judgement is possible because we are dealing with amoral facts about existence. With your principle 1, you have leaped to a moral judgement where no moral judgement is possible. If existence is not desrved then it is undeserved. That is what "un" means. You are arguing for a logical contradiction. Why do you assume that I am making a moral judgement? (Not that people need "society" to make moral judgements. You might want to read some Ayn Rand on that subject.)
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 132

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:46 PM:	#90
cortes wrote: The question that you dodged is this: why did you not think it important to include those "contingencies for our physical being" in your philosophical discussions? Glypt wrote: Our contingencies for our physical being are indeed far reaching. But you must see that issues of personhood requires society, for the reasons stated. cortes wrote: I am simply pointing out that your weak attempt at offering an alternative understanding of "deserved" does not even stand up to the most cursory examination. My understanding of deserved is both lexical and culturally informed in both academic and normative life. cortes wrote: As a rule of thumb, for purposes of your understanding, imagine that discussion between Gates and Marx on deserving wealth. I have and both of these figures would agree with me given that both depend upon the contingencies of society in supporting being human. That their response to that state of affairs differs is neither here nor there.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.