5AF Philosophy Thread

[Guinness]

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?

I disagree. My philosophy is about what is. It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.

[Guinness]

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.

Again, practicality isn't at question in this thread.

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.

[columbia]

Logic is a large component of philosophy and one cannot have logic without practicality.

[Guinness]

Logic is a large component of philosophy and one cannot have logic without practicality.

Poke a hole in the actual logic of my argument, then.

"Sounds good but I don't think it would work" isn't a counter-argument. It's an opinion.

[columbia]

The onus is in you to prove that it would work.

[Guinness]

The onus is in you to prove that it would work.

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.

[columbia]

What leads you to believe it would work?

Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?

[Guinness]

What leads you to believe it would work?

Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?

Counter the argument, sir.

[columbia]

That argument is useless, unless it is possible under real conditions.

You say you understand human nature, but yhat seems to be false.

[count2infinity]

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.

[Willie Kool]

It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.

Do you not see human nature as being self-centered?

[Guinness]

That argument is useless, unless it is possible under real conditions.

You say you understand human nature, but yhat seems to be false.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

[columbia]

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.

You're making the mistake of thinking that this is a philosophical discussion; it's one of practicality and reality.

[Guinness]

It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.

Do you not see human nature as being self-centered?

Not in the same subjectively negative manner that you do; and I make that inference by recognizing your proposed order of society.

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.

[Guinness]

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.

You're making the mistake of thinking that this is a philosophical discussion; it's one of practicality and reality.

Well, this is the 5AF Philosophy Thread, so...

Also, I think it's fair to accept that as a concession that there is no counter argument to my position.

[columbia]

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.

You're making the mistake of thinking that this is a philosophical discussion; it's one of practicality and reality.

Well, this is the 5AF Philosophy Thread, so...

And @NAN could take about video games in the cooking thread...

[Willie Kool]

It's not at all "self-centered"; it's respectful of human nature.

Do you not see human nature as being self-centered?

Not in the same subjectively negative manner that you do; and I make that inference by recognizing your proposed order of society.

That's a hell of an inference.

'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.

You view human nature as flawed, as needing corrected structurally - that self-centered nature must be corrected via society.

Self-centered nature must be corrected to some degree - by the individual - for him or her to actually be a member of any 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.

Your use of barbarism right there...

In fact, it is impossible for humans to "correct" human nature. It would be utopian to believe that it is.

So your religion is futile and utopian?

[MWB]

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.

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.

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?

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?

[Guinness]

'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.

Wouldn't mind seeing this assertion fleshed out...

[Guinness]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.).

[shmenguin]

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.

[count2infinity]

...but this is coming from the guy who compared humans to dirt, so there's that.

Well, the true test there is to ask Godric if he eats humans...

[MWB]

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.).

the right to life - agree
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.

[columbia]

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.

[Algernon]

...but this is coming from the guy who compared humans to dirt, so there's that.

Well, the true test there is to ask Godric if he eats humans...

Sort of.

But I think we should save that for the love thread