I disagree. My philosophy is about what is. It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.At it's core, your political philosophy is all about 'ME'. My political philosophy, while similar in many respects, is all about 'US'. While I agree that, as you say, "the individual is the building block of human interaction", just what kind of interactions can really be expected when the philosophy is so self centered?
5AF Philosophy Thread
5AF Philosophy Thread
5AF Philosophy Thread
Again, practicality isn't at question in this thread.Because I think that it would be gullible to believe that a stateless society would remain so. Human nature n'at.
As an aside: your message would go over a lot better under actual tyrannies.
That being said, I do not agree that a stateless society is "impractical". No more so than any other particular political framework. Actually less so.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Logic is a large component of philosophy and one cannot have logic without practicality.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Poke a hole in the actual logic of my argument, then.Logic is a large component of philosophy and one cannot have logic without practicality.
"Sounds good but I don't think it would work" isn't a counter-argument. It's an opinion.
5AF Philosophy Thread
The onus is in you to prove that it would work.
5AF Philosophy Thread
No it's not. I laid out the logic of self-ownership. You don't think it will "work". That's fine, but that's not what we're discussing in this thread. That's exactly why I moved it to this thread. This is a philosophy thread. I laid out the logic of the philosophy, as I have numerous times. Counter my argument.The onus is in you to prove that it would work.
5AF Philosophy Thread
What leads you to believe it would work?
Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?
Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?
5AF Philosophy Thread
Counter the argument, sir.What leads you to believe it would work?
Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?
5AF Philosophy Thread
That argument is useless, unless it is possible under real conditions.
You say you understand human nature, but yhat seems to be false.
You say you understand human nature, but yhat seems to be false.
-
- Posts: 35763
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
- Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
- Contact:
5AF Philosophy Thread
Burden of proof in a philosophical discussion might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Edit: strike that... I watched the debate last night.
Edit: strike that... I watched the debate last night.
-
- Posts: 9330
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
- Location: undisclosed
5AF Philosophy Thread
Do you not see human nature as being self-centered?It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.
5AF Philosophy Thread
I'll take that as a 'no'.That argument is useless, unless it is possible under real conditions.
You say you understand human nature, but yhat seems to be false.
5AF Philosophy Thread
You're making the mistake of thinking that this is a philosophical discussion; it's one of practicality and reality.Burden of proof in a philosophical discussion might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Edit: strike that... I watched the debate last night.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Not in the same subjectively negative manner that you do; and I make that inference by recognizing your proposed order of society.Do you not see human nature as being self-centered?It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.
You view human nature as flawed, as needing corrected structurally - that self-centered nature must be corrected via society. And the problem with that is someone needs to be in charge of correcting human nature. That's a damned tall order, fraught with peril, and one which invariably leads to barbarism. In fact, it is impossible for humans to "correct" human nature. It would be utopian to believe that it is.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Well, this is the 5AF Philosophy Thread, so...You're making the mistake of thinking that this is a philosophical discussion; it's one of practicality and reality.Burden of proof in a philosophical discussion might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Edit: strike that... I watched the debate last night.
Also, I think it's fair to accept that as a concession that there is no counter argument to my position.
5AF Philosophy Thread
And @NAN could take about video games in the cooking thread...Well, this is the 5AF Philosophy Thread, so...You're making the mistake of thinking that this is a philosophical discussion; it's one of practicality and reality.Burden of proof in a philosophical discussion might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Edit: strike that... I watched the debate last night.
-
- Posts: 9330
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
- Location: undisclosed
5AF Philosophy Thread
That's a hell of an inference.Not in the same subjectively negative manner that you do; and I make that inference by recognizing your proposed order of society.Do you not see human nature as being self-centered?It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.
'Human nature' is the product of evolution. Perhaps it is also subject to it, and 'human nature' has evolved to include a penchant for statism.
Self-centered nature must be corrected to some degree - by the individual - for him or her to actually be a member of any society.You view human nature as flawed, as needing corrected structurally - that self-centered nature must be corrected via society.
Your use of barbarism right there...And the problem with that is someone needs to be in charge of correcting human nature. That's a damned tall order, fraught with peril, and one which invariably leads to barbarism.
So your religion is futile and utopian?In fact, it is impossible for humans to "correct" human nature. It would be utopian to believe that it is.
5AF Philosophy Thread
What are "common rights" to you? If one person says, "Hey, you're infringing on my basic rights," and the other says, "No, that's not a basic right," how is that issue solved?Well, first of all, this is a philosophy thread, so whether or not a view holds up in practice isn't really at question. That's exactly why I made my response in this thread, actually - because I realized that I was making my case in the wrong arena - I was debating philosophy with people who didn't care a lick about philosophy, they only concerned themselves with practical politics. But to that point, your comment doesn't undermine the actual philosophy of my argument.Your views fall apart when there is conflict between two individuals because each views his/her rights differently. One person may not see a basic right the same as another. So the result is that a group of people form a list of common rights that are agreed upon by then majority. Then it snowballs from there.
Secondly, where do the majority get the authority to impose their view of "common rights"? Force. So just admit that the system you advocate relies entirely upon the implementation of unprovoked violence. And if that is that case - and I won't necessarily contest you on that point - don't you think that if that is the basis of your power - the implementation of unprovoked violence - that it should be as limited as is practicable?
5AF Philosophy Thread
Wouldn't mind seeing this assertion fleshed out...
'Human nature' is the product of evolution. Perhaps it is also subject to it, and 'human nature' has evolved to include a penchant for statism.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Quick question - do you contest my self-ownership argument?What are "common rights" to you? If one person says, "Hey, you're infringing on my basic rights," and the other says, "No, that's not a basic right," how is that issue solved?Well, first of all, this is a philosophy thread, so whether or not a view holds up in practice isn't really at question. That's exactly why I made my response in this thread, actually - because I realized that I was making my case in the wrong arena - I was debating philosophy with people who didn't care a lick about philosophy, they only concerned themselves with practical politics. But to that point, your comment doesn't undermine the actual philosophy of my argument.Your views fall apart when there is conflict between two individuals because each views his/her rights differently. One person may not see a basic right the same as another. So the result is that a group of people form a list of common rights that are agreed upon by then majority. Then it snowballs from there.
Secondly, where do the majority get the authority to impose their view of "common rights"? Force. So just admit that the system you advocate relies entirely upon the implementation of unprovoked violence. And if that is that case - and I won't necessarily contest you on that point - don't you think that if that is the basis of your power - the implementation of unprovoked violence - that it should be as limited as is practicable?
Common rights - Natural or God-given rights - are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the product of your life and liberty (property), and thus all of the consequences thereof (e.g., since I have a right to my life, I have a right to defend my life, etc.).
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
5AF Philosophy Thread
The idea of Natural or God given rights is no less artificial than the idea of State. Neither has any implicit link to the human condition. It's all man-made.
...but this is coming from the guy who compared humans to dirt, so there's that.
...but this is coming from the guy who compared humans to dirt, so there's that.
-
- Posts: 35763
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
- Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
- Contact:
5AF Philosophy Thread
Well, the true test there is to ask Godric if he eats humans......but this is coming from the guy who compared humans to dirt, so there's that.
5AF Philosophy Thread
the right to life - agree
Quick question - do you contest my self-ownership argument?
Common rights - Natural or God-given rights - are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the product of your life and liberty (property), and thus all of the consequences thereof (e.g., since I have a right to my life, I have a right to defend my life, etc.).
right to liberty - agree
right to the product of your life and liberty - agree
all of the consequences thereof - This is where the area gets more gray.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Is living a right or merely an instinct?
My dog would certainly do anything he could to preserve his life (and probably mine too).
So we're back to "rights" (but only for human beings) being a gift from God and/or a dark corner of the universe. That's just silly.
My dog would certainly do anything he could to preserve his life (and probably mine too).
So we're back to "rights" (but only for human beings) being a gift from God and/or a dark corner of the universe. That's just silly.
5AF Philosophy Thread
Sort of.Well, the true test there is to ask Godric if he eats humans......but this is coming from the guy who compared humans to dirt, so there's that.
But I think we should save that for the love thread
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 354 guests