5AF Philosophy Thread

[Kraftster]

Without thinking about it too much, I'd say the capacity to reason. Interestingly, a large portion of the "human" population seems to have an inability to tap into that capacity.

[shmenguin]

Without thinking about it too much, I'd say the capacity to reason. Interestingly, a large portion of the "human" population seems to have an inability to tap into that capacity.

I've heard the "reason" thing before, but it's never made much sense. I've seen some monkeys do some pretty clever things, for instance.

[Kraftster]

I'd probably take the position that those clever things aren't the product of reason.

The difference between humans and animals strikes as me as a difference of kind and not degree. The obvious candidates for explaining that seem to be consciousness and reason. I guess my initial reaction was to say I've seen more from animals to demonstrate consciousness than reason.

[shmenguin]

Saw a chimp at the zoo put his hand perpendicular against his forehead in order to block the sun. Simple enough. Not terribly impressive.

I come back 5 minutes later and that chimp had a trash can lid on his head. Boom. Instant sombrero and 2 free hands to throw his feces around at will.

Maybe that's not "reason", but it's certainly innovative.

[large garlic]

I've got some thoughts on this question. I kind of like Nietzsche's typically glib explanation that we're different because we have philosophy, religion, and art.

[redwill]

I've got some thoughts on this question. I kind of like Nietzsche's typically glib explanation that we're different because we have philosophy, religion, and art.

So suppose a human is born with such severe brain damage that he or she cannot create or appreciate philosophy, religion, and/or art. Is that human being -- a scientifically verified homo sapiens sapiens -- not human?

[Freddy Rumsen]

I've got some thoughts on this question. I kind of like Nietzsche's typically glib explanation that we're different because we have philosophy, religion, and art.

So suppose a human is born with such severe brain damage that he or she cannot create or appreciate philosophy, religion, and/or art. Is that human being -- a scientifically verified homo sapiens sapiens -- not human?

There are some more strict Utilitarians who say no, and those who fit that definition need eliminated for the sake of the majority.

[Willie Kool]

I'd probably take the position that those clever things aren't the product of reason.

So, in your opinion, an ape or crow USING TOOLS isn't using reason?

[Willie Kool]

If any life is precious, all life is precious. While you can certainly point out general behaviour traits that most members of a species share, all living creatures are unique individuals with unique 'personalities' shaped by both their unique DNA and their unique experiences / memories.

[Algernon]

Nope. Mosquitoes are not precious

[shmenguin]

If any life is precious, all life is precious. While you can certainly point out general behaviour traits that most members of a species share, all living creatures are unique individuals with unique 'personalities' shaped by both their unique DNA and their unique experiences / memories.

My children are precious. Brayden Schenn is not.

See how selective it is?

[count2infinity]

I think agriculture and the ability to control heat. I don't think humans are special in the world of animals, they've just developed faster than other animals due to their ability to truly change their surroundings to benefit themselves, and the two biggest examples to me are agriculture and controlling heat via fire.

[shmenguin]

Language (and all its related communication methods) seems to me like a humongous big differentiator.

[Guinness]

Think more broadly:

You both claim to have a core set of values, which effortlessly and logically informs your specific (and "righteous") views. It's demagoguery, to be honest.

That's discounting logical deduction. Of course anyone can lay claim to "a set of values" (ETA - and anyone with a political view point to one degree or another does). Can that person defend them logically, however? Notice, I do not demand that anyone agrees with my conclusions - unlike EVERYONE else with a contrary political opinion, I'll humbly point out. That is the inevitable consequence of my political conclusions, and - ironically - the inevitable consequence of their conclusions, obviously.

The problem is you presume the existence of absolute truths in the matter of human interaction and existence, and trumpet a set of beliefs as the only defensible basis for the human condition.

The point of political science is to determine an order of society, and I would add that if that is the aim, the order which is determined should be one which is most congruous with and respectful of human nature.

Self-ownership, the notion that each individual human being is the owner of his/her own life, is logically deductible (do I need to go into the details of this again? Hope not ). The organization of individual human beings into groups can be a rhetorical convenience, but those groups are not real entities, they're merely constructed of individual human beings, each with their own distinct thoughts, feelings, etc. The group (e.g., "Americans"; Black people; "the gay community"; "the poor") cannot 'think', or 'feel'. A group certainly cannot have rights. There may be some common thought or feeling which is partly representative of some percentage of the individuals who are considered a part of a group, but there is no thought or feeling. Groups don't have minds from which thoughts or feelings can emerge.

It is also logically deductible (again, I hope it's not necessary for me to go into it) that amongst individuals, there is no objective standard by which we may determine inherent worth or value. Stated otherwise, "all men are created equal". Thus it follows logically that no man (nor any group of men) may rule over other men. How could he/they if there is no objective standard by which we may assess his/their "worth"?

Advocates of the state ignore this reality; presumably out of utility, or more likely because those people do not understand or they ignore the reality of human existence. The state enshrines conflict within human society because it is the institutionalization of human inequality. It necessarily introduces a hierarchy, in each of its manifestations (monarchy, democracy, plutocracy, autarchy), which does not naturally exist in human interaction.

So I espouse a theory of political philosophy which is most respectful of this fact of human nature. And this is what separates me from seemingly every other member of this forum who has made their political philosophy clear explicitly or implicitly.

Thus the "views" I espouse are logically defensible, and can be differentiated from those who cannot logically defend their particular political philosophy. In other words, the individual is the building block of human interaction in my political philosophy, and I'm confident I can defend the existence of the individual. Hierarchy is the building block of every other political philosophy, which is objectively indefensible. Which makes this statement:

Meaning: you are no different than anyone else here.

Incorrect.

The beliefs you hold are not morally inviolable when put into practice any more than other beliefs;

Likely. But that isn't a defensible argument against implementing them. If it were, there are 100-fold arguments against putting other political beliefs into practice.

ironically enough for the very same reasons your philosophy is attractive. Perhaps yours are better and would approach the best solution to the condition that is humanity and consciousness; perhaps not.

When measured against the reality of the human condition, it's not a matter of chance as you suggest.

But running around telling people that they're stupid because they disagree with your viewpoints -- even those of us who understand the moral imperatives and philosophical underpinnings of your beliefs and even sympathize with them -- is no way to successfully promote your position. And yes, I know that the latter is not a particular concern of yours.

I grant you this point. I'm not falling on my sword, and I'm not asking forgiveness. But I recognize that I've burned bridges with my tone here at times. It is what it is. It ain't easy being green.

[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.

[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?

[count2infinity]

Do my eyes deceive me or did Guinness just say his philosophy isn't practical?

[Guinness]

Do my eyes deceive me or did Guinness just say his philosophy isn't practical?

No. I acknowledged that I was trying to debate political philosophy with people who are discussing practical politics.

I argue that my political philosophy is more practical than any other. To an extent I'd agree with you, only that I'm arguing on behalf of broccoli, when everyone else is selling candy.

[columbia]

I view the conflict as:

Humans are inherently flawed and government (no matter how wart filled) is best chance of reducing harm.

It's clear that Guinness thinks (I guess) that the government is the most "efficient" conduit for said harm.

We disagree, but I'll take my chances with government.

[Guinness]

How is the state (not 'government') the best chance for reducing harm if:

A. Humans are inherently flawed

B. The state is made up of humans

C. The state's authority is arbitrary and final?

How is that NOT a recipe for disaster?

Also, even if I were to grant that the state is a viable solution to human conflict, given the above facts, wouldn't a limited - a VERY carefully limited - state be preferable??

[columbia]

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.

[Willie Kool]

The point of political science is to determine an order of society, and I would add that if that is the aim, the order which is determined should be one which is most congruous with and respectful of human nature.

Self-ownership, the notion that each individual human being is the owner of his/her own life, is logically deductible (do I need to go into the details of this again? Hope not ). The organization of individual human beings into groups can be a rhetorical convenience, but those groups are not real entities, they're merely constructed of individual human beings, each with their own distinct thoughts, feelings, etc. The group (e.g., "Americans"; Black people; "the gay community"; "the poor") cannot 'think', or 'feel'. A group certainly cannot have rights. There may be some common thought or feeling which is partly representative of some percentage of the individuals who are considered a part of a group, but there is no thought or feeling. Groups don't have minds from which thoughts or feelings can emerge.

It is also logically deductible (again, I hope it's not necessary for me to go into it) that amongst individuals, there is no objective standard by which we may determine inherent worth or value. Stated otherwise, "all men are created equal". Thus it follows logically that no man (nor any group of men) may rule over other men. How could he/they if there is no objective standard by which we may assess his/their "worth"?

Advocates of the state ignore this reality; presumably out of utility, or more likely because those people do not understand or they ignore the reality of human existence. The state enshrines conflict within human society because it is the institutionalization of human inequality. It necessarily introduces a hierarchy, in each of its manifestations (monarchy, democracy, plutocracy, autarchy), which does not naturally exist in human interaction.

So I espouse a theory of political philosophy which is most respectful of this fact of human nature. And this is what separates me from seemingly every other member of this forum who has made their political philosophy clear explicitly or implicitly.

Thus the "views" I espouse are logically defensible, and can be differentiated from those who cannot logically defend their particular political philosophy. In other words, the individual is the building block of human interaction in my political philosophy, and I'm confident I can defend the existence of the individual. Hierarchy is the building block of every other political philosophy, which is objectively indefensible.

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?

[shmenguin]

If you believe everything is just stardust and that humans have no soul and no free will, and aren't any different than a pile of dirt...sentient meat and so forth...in that premise, are we still entitled to this anarchist brand of self ownership?

Consciousness tricks us into thinking we aren't just a bunch of particles (hey, speaking of artificial groups) sitting in the back seat of a car someone else is driving (Jesus isn't taking the wheel in this scenario either).

[Algernon]

If you believe everything is just stardust and that humans have no soul and no free will, and aren't any different than a pile of dirt...sentient meat and so forth...in that premise, are we still entitled to this anarchist brand of self ownership?

Consciousness tricks us into thinking we aren't just a bunch of particles (hey, speaking of artificial groups) sitting in the back seat of a car someone else is driving (Jesus isn't taking the wheel in this scenario either).

But you don't know the limits and parameters of your own consciousness let alone someone else's or their capacity to attach meaning or

[Guinness]

If you believe everything is just stardust and that humans have no soul and no free will, and aren't any different than a pile of dirt...sentient meat and so forth...in that premise, are we still entitled to this anarchist brand of self ownership?

Think my thoughts. Experience my feelings.

I can't think your thoughts, because you're a completely distinct, separate and unique human being.