(Close Window)
Topic: What are "rights?"
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 04:29PM)
I've wanted to do a thread like this for a while, and the "What is Value" thread reminded me.

So, let's wax philosophical.

I would start by asserting rights are inherent, and all humans have equal inherent rights.
That's not to say they are recognized everywhere on Earth, but we don't want to get political.

So, your thoughts?
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 25, 2012 04:52PM)
I wouldn't start by characterizing rights as inherent. Although it's perhaps true in some cases, not in others.

There was a legal scholar named Hohfeld who thought deeply about what a right is. He came up with eight distinct concepts that were often conflated by people -- even legally trained people like judges -- all under the term "right." I have to jump on my last call for the day, so I won't give a careful explanation just yet. Fortunately, some guy with a blog did some of my work for me:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2004/05/legal_theory_le_4.html

I'll check back in later.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2012 05:38PM)
The opposite of "lefts."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 06:27PM)
Mobility, I am speaking of natural rights, as opposed to legal ones, given legal "rights" can be simply decreed, whether they are rights or not.
As such, establishing WHAT rights are would precede enshrining them on law.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 07:01PM)
What are "natural rights" and where do they come from?

How are property rights "natural?" Can one truly "own" anything? (Native Americans, for example, once believed that the concept of anyone "owning" land was ridiculous. That's why they thought it was a bit of a joke to sell Manhattan to the Dutch for a handful of trinkets.)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 07:27PM)
They extend from ones self ownership. As for a right own property, I would love to discuss that. It is one of the few, if not the only thing I am willing to accept the conclusion for practical/pragmatic reasons. I know there have been several societies/tribes that do not believe in the concept of land ownership, but do accept other property rights.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 25, 2012 07:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 20:27, gdw wrote:
They extend from ones self ownership....
[/quote]

that's interesting and also not too general or consistent in our culture.

Am I my brother's keeper? Does the state have the right to kill a citizen? Do the people belong to the soil? Dime a dozen?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 25, 2012 07:31PM)
If one's 'natural rights' are violated, to whom does one appeal?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 07:36PM)
Well, one certainly has a right to defend their rights ;)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 07:40PM)
Where does the concept of "self ownership" come from? And who determines what rights naturally "extend" from that?

And who, if anyone, should defend the rights of those who cannot defend them for themselves?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 25, 2012 07:46PM)
If you lose all your rights, what's left?

If two wrongs don't make a right, how many do?

Just how many Frenchmen can't be wrong?

and--why do exactly NINE out of TEN agree...?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 25, 2012 07:50PM)
Steve you're presuming that the notion has meaning outside of social contract - which has varied over time and across societies.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 20:46, Steve_Mollett wrote:
If you lose all your rights, what's left?

If two wrongs don't make a right, how many do?

Just how many Frenchmen can't be wrong?

and--why do exactly NINE out of TEN agree...?
[/quote]


:thumbsup: 
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 08:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 20:40, mastermindreader wrote:
Where does the concept of "self ownership" come from? And who determines what rights naturally "extend" from that?

And who, if anyone, should defend the rights of those who cannot defend them for themselves?
[/quote]

Well, who DOES have any, pardon the term, right to say who determines that? If we start with the assumption that no one is inherently above another, then, at the very least we have inherent rights we would have on an otherwise deserted island, but no more than we would have we're there another person on the island with the same inherent rights.
I think that works quite well as a litmus test myself.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 25, 2012 08:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 21:00, gdw wrote:...
Well, who DOES have any, pardon the term, right to say who determines that? ...
[/quote]

Your question begs
and assumption that follows is telling.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 08:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 20:46, Steve_Mollett wrote:


and--why do exactly NINE out of TEN agree...?
[/quote]

Because the tenth one is an anarchist? :eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 09:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 21:00, gdw wrote:

If we start with the assumption that no one is inherently above another, then, at the very least we have inherent rights we would have on an otherwise deserted island, but no more than we would have we're there another person on the island with the same inherent rights.

[/quote]

You are starting with an arbitrary assumption - and one that is certainly not in accordance with natural law. The "law of nature" is simply that the one who is bigger, stronger and smarter, is inherently above the the one who is smaller, weaker and dumber. It was purely the laws of man that sought, eventually, to remedy what is actually inherent inequality.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 09:07PM)
Then let's try another approach. Who controls your body?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 09:16PM)
No, let's not. Why not respond to my last post? (But the answer to who controls your body is simple- environment and all of the other natural phenomena referred to above.)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 09:23PM)
Well, for starters, I was responding to Jonathan's.
As for no one bring above another, I was referring to in terms of rights.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 09:49PM)
You are now arguing circularly. You still haven't answered where those rights come from. You have merely posited an arbitrary assumption that is directly contrary to the laws of nature.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 25, 2012 09:53PM)
Well, apparently the claim that these truths are self evident was good enough for others, wh you yourself have appealed to.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2012 09:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 22:53, gdw wrote:
Well, apparently the claim that these truths are self evident was good enough for others, wh you yourself have appealed to.
[/quote]

Those are philosophical and Deist ideas popularized during the Age of Reason and designed to serve an ideal created by men, NOT natural laws.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2012 11:04PM)
I'm still working on how the assumption of self-ownership (already a formulation that could only come out of a very specific historical consciousness) extends to property. It's a total non-sequitur.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2012 11:06PM)
Why do you think the assumption of self-ownership could only come out of a very specific historical consciousness?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 26, 2012 02:29AM)
Natural law assumes that we are mere animals dictated by the changes and chances of the natural world. Surely the very ability for a human to be able to reason before acting on something is a validity that we are more than just mere animals.....

It is that "thing" that elevates us above the animal kingdom which is the link that puts all humans on an equal footing in terms of rights....surely whether I was born with a stronger genetic ability to run like Usain Bolt and you weren't has NOTHING to do with who has the more rights....

The day we truly recognize the reality of our essential oneness will be the day we will finally be truly free

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2012 02:34AM)
If anything, I would sooner suggest that our ability to reason puts us on a higher plane of responsibilities than a higher plane of rights.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 26, 2012 02:46AM)
I wasn't saying that Lobowolf :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 26, 2012 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-26 03:29, kambiz wrote:
Surely the very ability for a human to be able to reason before acting on something is a validity that we are more than just mere animals.....
[/quote]

I believe that other animals can reason, although I'm not aware of any conclusive study on the matter. I believe that the old misconception that they lack the ability to communicate has been debunked though.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 26, 2012 11:37AM)
:pop:
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 26, 2012 11:39AM)
Yuck. I hate popcorn. Why anyone would want to eat food that smells like farts is beyond me.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 26, 2012 11:42AM)
Popcorn farts are nothing compared to what you can fire off after eating a bag of White Castles!

The question is, though, do you have inherent right to defend yourself in this manner?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 26, 2012 11:48AM)
Excellent point, Bill Murray in Ed Wood.
All you'd need to weaponize it is a plain Bic lighter. Don't tell Al Kwayder though.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 26, 2012 04:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-26 12:37, stoneunhinged wrote:
:pop:
[/quote]

Yup, lots of fun at open book tests too.

I'll give you this nice barometer if you tell me the height of this building.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2012 04:11PM)
Even Doctor Crow has to open the book.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 26, 2012 04:22PM)
What the **** does any of that have to do with popcorn or farts?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 26, 2012 06:44PM)
What we KNOW is that we, popcorn and farts exist.
We also know that old farts often gather in small bars.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 26, 2012 07:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-26 19:44, Steve_Mollett wrote:
What we KNOW is that we, popcorn and farts exist.
We also know that old farts often gather in small bars.
[/quote]

See, now [i]that's[/i] good science!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2012 07:54PM)
Sorry I don't have anything to add to the popcorn discussion.

[quote]
On 2012-01-26 00:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Why do you think the assumption of self-ownership could only come out of a very specific historical consciousness?
[/quote]
The idea that you "owned" your body would be incomprehensible for much of pre-capitalist society. The body is subject to the will of God, community, and your masters/lords.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2012 07:57PM)
Forgetting the determinist view for now, who controls you?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 26, 2012 08:13PM)
The conscious actions that I take are determined by the education that I have received. Consciously practice those actions and you are in total conscious control of yourself. Practice consciously for long enough, then you will master those actions by carrying them out subconsciously/intuitively/automatically.

So, your education (whether its spiritual or material education) controls you....

My humble opinion, of course....

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2012 08:39PM)
:rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 26, 2012 09:27PM)
Gdw, I assume the rolling of eyes implies I have been too deterministic for you lol

What are you looking for exactly? I thinking more clarity will help guide the discussion in the direction you wish to go....maybe?

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2012 01:19AM)
A god came to a man
And said to him thus:
“I have an apple
“It is a glorious apple
“Aye, I swear by my ancestors
“Of the eternities before this eternity
“It is an apple that is from
“The inner thoughts of heaven's greatest.
“And this I will hang here
“And then I will adjust thee here
“Thus—you may reach it.
“And you must stifle your nostrils
“And control your hands
“And your eyes
“And sit for sixty years
“But,—leave be the apple.”
The man answered in this wise:
“Oh, most interesting God
“What folly is this?
“Behold, thou hast moulded my desires
“Even as thou hast moulded the apple...


Stephen Crane
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2012 01:24AM)
Apple Jacks are what popcorn would be if it wasn't awful.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 27, 2012 02:29AM)
Lobowolf, there is a huge difference between absolute liberty and true liberty.

In the example you use, God has provided for the true liberty of man (symbolically of course) but man still has the free will to choose to turn away from that guidance. Desireable things driving us towards absolute liberty, such as those symbolized by the apple, are tests intended for us to grow and develop our higher nature. The symbol of absolute liberty is the animal.....

Turning away from the apples of prejudice, greed, decadence etc etc bring us closer to our intended, truly liberal, purpose as humans.

God does not mould our desires at all, we have absolute free will in that regard....

Free will is the foundation of human existence and even God would not change that, ever....

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 06:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-26 22:27, kambiz wrote:
Gdw, I assume the rolling of eyes implies I have been too deterministic for you lol

What are you looking for exactly? I thinking more clarity will help guide the discussion in the direction you wish to go....maybe?

Kam
[/quote]

No, that's not too deterministic, but we still have choice in spite of our education.
I think my point is obvious, it's YOUR body, no one else's.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 27, 2012 07:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 07:59, gdw wrote:
I think my point is obvious, it's YOUR body, no one else's.
[/quote]

Say's you. Prove it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 07:15AM)
Prove that it's someone else's
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 27, 2012 07:21AM)
Wow, Glenn. That's a convicing argument.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 27, 2012 07:56AM)
I think there is an argument to imply that we (and by that I mean our physical and spiritual identities) belong to a Source higher than ourselves. I cannot see any rational argument implying that I belong to another human being, animal, vegetable or mineral however.....

There is no scientific proof that I belong to that higher Source, however, most deistic philosophies imply that the human heart/soul/spirit does not belong to the individual it is attached to....but I don't think any of this changes our inherent rights as humans, whether we belong to ourselves or to a higher higher Source....

Education dictates the number of choices available to us when we wish to direct our bodies (i.e actions) in any specific direction, but in that sense gdw I would agree with you that we are the masters of our own lives (I think my post on free will elaorates on my poistion here)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 27, 2012 08:11AM)
....however let me clarify one component which I feel is important....

We are like a steam ship flowing through the ocean of life, we are in full control of the rudder of the ship only, we can choose to direct the ship to the east or to the west, to the north or to the south, that is the extent of our free will....

....the ship goes nowhere without the steam which powers it, and it is the Higher Source that represents the steam of our ship

Kam
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 27, 2012 08:58AM)
OK, I'll make an argument:

I think that if I can take control of another person by force, than I have--for all intents and purposes--made them my property.

There. That is an argument. Beats any argument I've read to the contrary in this thread.

I'm going back to my popcorn.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2012 10:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 03:29, kambiz wrote:

God does not mould our desires at all, we have absolute free will in that regard....
Free will is the foundation of human existence and even God would not change that, ever....
[/quote]

For all practical purposes, I disagree. I believe that free will is incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent God.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 27, 2012 11:06AM)
I can't believe the typos I've made in this thread.

Please excuse me, folks. I'm not myself. Too much popcorn.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 12:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 12:06, stoneunhinged wrote:
I can't believe the typos I've made in this thread.

Please excuse me, folks. I'm not myself. Too much popcorn.
[/quote]

Don't blame yourself. Clearly someone else owned you in those moments, and thus they are responsible for your mistakes.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2012 12:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 11:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:
...I believe that free will is incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent God.
[/quote]

I feel the same way about popcorn.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 27, 2012 03:34PM)
Popcorn is the point. Some smell butter, some smell farts.

What do "rights" have to do with butter, farts, or buttery farts?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2012 03:40PM)
I feel like I should have the right not to have the entire theatre smell like farts every time I pay $15 to watch a movie.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 03:58PM)
I feel I should have the right TO have the theatre smell like farts every time I pay to see a movie. And by the way, $15, where are you going to the movies?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 27, 2012 05:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 11:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 03:29, kambiz wrote:

God does not mould our desires at all, we have absolute free will in that regard....
Free will is the foundation of human existence and even God would not change that, ever....
[/quote]

For all practical purposes, I disagree. I believe that free will is incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent God.
[/quote]


Lobowolf, I think my post relating to the steam ship demonstrates that to some extent I agree with you

I suppose that to some extent it depends on your definition of free will. If by free will you mean that one day I choose to fly, then I agree, we have no free will. However, when it comes to responding to man made desires such as shall I make a racist comment or not, then you have complete free will to choose, God does not interfere in these matters, otherwise He would tomorrow give everyone on earth a supreme miracle that will show His face to all, that will give everyone NO DOUBT that He exists and the worlds people's will instantly bow to His every command. No, this is never gonna happen

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 27, 2012 05:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 16:58, gdw wrote:
I feel I should have the right TO ...
[/quote]

...and supposedly the cow feels it should have the right its milk. What's the difference?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 06:32PM)
Kam, I believe Lobo's point was not that you can't fly simply by pure will, but that free will can not coexist with an omnipotent omniscient god. If god is all powerful, and he created us as we are, then, if he is all knowing, would know everything we would do from before he created us. Being all powerful, he could have created us so we would do differently, so everything we do is actually controlled/predetermined by the choice(s) of such a god, therefore, free will does not exist in the same reality as an omniscient and omnipotent god.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2012 09:21PM)
Don't you guys know how to fly?
What you do is throw yourself at the ground and miss.

I must have told you 42 times by now...
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 01:00AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-25 19:27, gdw wrote:
Mobility, I am speaking of natural rights, as opposed to legal ones, given legal "rights" can be simply decreed, whether they ar
e rights or not.
As such, establishing WHAT rights are would precede enshrining them on law.
[/quote]
There are no such thing as natural rights. In a state of nature, you have no rights. You can be killed, you can be robbed, you can be pillaged and beaten. It is kill or be killed. it is survival. it is hunting and gathering. there are no rights.
There are only rights when you form a society and make laws to protect yourself. This is what you simply have never been able to absorb. You have no rights whatsoever without law.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 28, 2012 02:11AM)
Like I tell my kids: I'm the biggest, so I'm always right. Naturally.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 28, 2012 03:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-27 19:32, gdw wrote:
Kam, I believe Lobo's point was not that you can't fly simply by pure will, but that free will can not coexist with an omnipotent omniscient god. If god is all powerful, and he created us as we are, then, if he is all knowing, would know everything we would do from before he created us. Being all powerful, he could have created us so we would do differently, so everything we do is actually controlled/predetermined by the choice(s) of such a god, therefore, free will does not exist in the same reality as an omniscient and omnipotent god.
[/quote]

Yes but an omniscient God may be infinitely knowledgeable of our actions, but that does not imply He is in "control" of it......we are not the puppets of an Omniscient and Omnipotent puppeteer......

The nature of free will and how it correlates with pre-destiny can be summarized below:


How lofty is the station which man, if he but choose to fulfill his high destiny, can attain! To what depths of degradation he can sink, depths which the meanest of creatures have never reached! Seize, O friends, the chance which this Day offereth you, and deprive not yourselves of the liberal effusions of His grace. I beseech God that He may graciously enable every one of you to adorn himself, in this blessed Day, with the ornament of pure and holy deeds. He, verily, doeth whatsoever He willeth.


So we have been assigned a pre-destined station and capacity, have been given the guidance to fulfil that capacity, yet it is our free will to follow the guidance to the letter, fully, partially, or not at all. Gods omniscience implies that He knows our destined capacity and what path we will take to reach that destiny, however He in no way influences it, except under exceptional circumstances, and that's only because He can... "He doeth as He doeth....."


Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 28, 2012 10:22AM)
This is a subject that can (and does) fill many books. So let me just say...I understand your position; I just don't agree with it.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 28, 2012 10:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 02:00, magicfish wrote:

There are no such thing as natural rights. In a state of nature, you have no rights. You can be killed, you can be robbed, you can be pillaged and beaten. It is kill or be killed. it is survival. it is hunting and gathering. there are no rights.
[/quote]

Uh, wrong.

You would have exactly that: the "right" to kill, be killed, rob, be robbed, pillage or be pillaged. The "right" to survival is precisely where the modern theories (read: Hobbes, Locke, et al) regarding natural rights begin.

Now, if you go back to Aristotle....

:pop:
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 12:55PM)
My highschool History projects were done about Locke and Hobbes. I hear what youre saying. but I mean it differently. In a state of nature I don't have a right not to be eaten by a predator, or murdered by an attacker.
With a constitution, I have the right not to be killed by another person.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 28, 2012 12:58PM)
It sounds as though the dispute (at least with respect to Magicfish's comments) is whether or not the only rights that exist are legal rights. IMO, there are others.

It's a bit curious that you would rely on the Constitution as the source of rights, when the founding fathers, by their own words, claimed not to be creating rights, but to operate from the first principle that there ARE other inherent rights.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 28, 2012 12:59PM)
In some cultures where cannibalism is the tradition, the natives are disgusted by the act. Reports from funerals in these cultures have told of natives pretending to eat their piece, but actually palming and discarding it.
Not sure if that's relevant, but it's cool.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 01:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 13:58, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It sounds as though the dispute (at least with respect to Magicfish's comments) is whether or not the only rights that exist are legal rights. IMO, there are others.

It's a bit curious that you would rely on the Constitution as the source of rights, when the founding fathers, by their own words, claimed not to be creating rights, but to operate from the first principle that there ARE other inherent rights.
[/quote]
My founding fathers were the fathers of confederation.
and yes, I rely on The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 01:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 13:58, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It sounds as though the dispute (at least with respect to Magicfish's comments) is whether or not the only rights that exist are legal rights. IMO, there are others.

It's a bit curious that you would rely on the Constitution as the source of rights, when the founding fathers, by their own words, claimed not to be creating rights, but to operate from the first principle that there ARE other inherent rights.
[/quote]
My founding fathers were the fathers of confederation.
and yes, I rely on The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 01:19PM)
When I'm in the bush I rely on survival. No rights in the bush. its survive or die.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 28, 2012 01:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 14:07, magicfish wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 13:58, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It sounds as though the dispute (at least with respect to Magicfish's comments) is whether or not the only rights that exist are legal rights. IMO, there are others.

It's a bit curious that you would rely on the Constitution as the source of rights, when the founding fathers, by their own words, claimed not to be creating rights, but to operate from the first principle that there ARE other inherent rights.
[/quote]
My founding fathers were the fathers of confederation.
and yes, I rely on The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
[/quote]


Ah, sorry...different Founding Fathers.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 28, 2012 01:43PM)
But you have no "right" to survive?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 28, 2012 01:45PM)
I would think you have the right to do something and live, or give up and die.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 28, 2012 02:25PM)
Critter, you are a true philosopher. Well said.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 28, 2012 03:15PM)
Like lefts only they have to travel further giving one more time to avoid them.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 03:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 14:45, critter wrote:
I would think you have the right
to do something and live, or give up and die.
[/quote]
I don't think its a right. I think it is an instinct do your best to survive.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2012 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-28 14:45, critter wrote:
I would think you have the right to do something and live, or give up and die.
[/quote]

A right to defend your rights.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 10:01PM)
No law, No rights.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 28, 2012 10:08PM)
That's not what they told my family in Iran

http://www.educationunderfire.com

.....and they tell us Iran has plenty of laws for the common good of all


Kam
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 28, 2012 10:19PM)
Don't get me wrong, you can have no rights even WITH laws . This is very apparent. But without law, forget it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 28, 2012 11:59PM)
Seen the landscape before?
Running in circles?
What do the terms matrix, cyberspace and virtual reality ... have in common?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 12:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 00:59, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

What do the terms matrix, cyberspace and virtual reality ... have in common?
[/quote]

They're all purple, except for the elephant.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 01:39AM)
Apparently what the eloquent regrets was left in the peanut butter.

What do you call the sand beneath this castle?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2012 01:54AM)
This whole thing is turning into a Björk song.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 02:09AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 02:54, critter wrote:
This whole thing is turning into a Björk song.
[/quote]

Any one in particular?

Or was that something from a higher floor of that castle built on sand?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2012 02:23AM)
"Purple Elephant Sand Castle." I think it's on the same album as "Hyperballad."
Here's some Hyperballad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CSiU0j_lFA
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 10:25AM)
How, specifically, does the Bjork item pertain to a discussion of rights and the social foundations which must be in place for that notion to have reliable operational meaning?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 10:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 11:25, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
How, specifically, does the Bjork item pertain to a discussion of rights and the social foundations which must be in place for that notion to have reliable operational meaning?
[/quote]

They're both purple, obviously.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 10:39AM)
Bob, purple is the color of the chemical that our retinas use to capture light and may well be the color of your sunglasses, though IMHO that does not suffice to help others see what or as you see - especially when it comes to "rights".

What must you find, even if colored purple, before you could believe in the notion of "rights" ?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 10:43AM)
I'd agree with you that you that the concept of rights is meaningless unless viewed in terms of an underlying socio-legal structure. The notion of "inherent" rights is simply that. A notion without an empirical basis.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2012 10:54AM)
If you mean 'meaningless' in the logical positivists' sense, I'd agree. However, many things that are meaningless are true.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2012 10:59AM)
Rights without means to enforce them are, essentially meaningless, I agree. However to assume that means a "legal" enshrinement of them is begging the question.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 29, 2012 11:03AM)
So, basically, you have the right to whatever you can coerce people below you in the pecking order to allow you to do.
(If someone above you in the pecking order allows you to do something, that's not a right.)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2012 11:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 11:25, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
How, specifically, does the Bjork item pertain to a discussion of rights and the social foundations which must be in place for that notion to have reliable operational meaning?
[/quote]

It's a rythmic thing.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 11:07AM)
Okay, - though "pecking order" is realtime operational (also an "as seen from outside" thing) we need something to manage expectations for others who have not yet found their place in such.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 29, 2012 11:16AM)
Pardon me folks, but I always tend to just make quips and jokes because I fear y'all will accuse me of arrogance and pedantry for putting on my "political philosophy" hat and entering the discussion. So with your pardon, I'll post a couple of thoughts, and please keep in mind that I don't mean to put anyone on this forum down with those thoughts.

It seems to me that few of you seem to understand the origin of the modern conception of "rights". If you go back to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Puffendorf, et al, what you get is a concept that [i]by its own internal logic[/i] precedes society or law. It doesn't make them right, but it does mean that once you land anywhere near legal positivism that you missed the whole point.

Think of it like this: if we do a thought experiment in which no society or government yet exists, what would human life be like? That is, by definition, "right" in the sense that is the natural (correct) position for humans to be in before they start artificially regulating human behavior. What makes Aristotle so different is his insistence that it *is* in fact natural (as opposed to artificial) to regulate human behavior. (This is, with a bit of modification, the whole point of saying man is a "political animal". He meant something like: human beings are the animals that organize their societies.)

Now, I fully understand that the term "rights" has changed meaning somewhat. But if you do people like John Locke the discredit of thinking that he failed to seem something when thinking there are rights outside of civil society, then you miss his point. And if you miss his point you can't learn from him. And if you cannot learn from the very thinkers who laid the intellectual groundwork for modern democratic societies, then you risk misunderstanding the foundations of those societies. And if you misunderstand the foundations, then you risk sounding like you don't even know what you're talking about. Which seems to be a risk many of you are taking.

Granted, the lawyers are probably familiar with all that I'm saying. Which proves they are not entirely bad people.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 11:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:16, stoneunhinged wrote:

Granted, the lawyers are probably familiar with all that I'm saying. Which proves they are not entirely bad people.
[/quote]

Thank you for that!

I agree with all you said, but there is a large difference between the pragmatic and the philosophical. I think one of the big problems here is that we are discussing both at the same time.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 11:40AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 11:43, mastermindreader wrote:
.... The notion of "inherent" rights is simply that. A notion without an empirical basis.
[/quote]

Does the cow have a right to its milk?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 11:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:40, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 11:43, mastermindreader wrote:
.... The notion of "inherent" rights is simply that. A notion without an empirical basis.
[/quote]

Does the cow have a right to its milk?
[/quote]

I imagine it depends on who you ask, the cow or the dairy farmer.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2012 12:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:26, mastermindreader wrote:
I think one of the big problems here is that we are discussing both at the same time.
[/quote]

HUGE problem, IMO.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 29, 2012 12:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 13:05, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:26, mastermindreader wrote:
I think one of the big problems here is that we are discussing both at the same time.
[/quote]

HUGE problem, IMO.
[/quote]

Well, hey, here we have a few of us agreeing on something!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 12:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:50, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:40, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 11:43, mastermindreader wrote:
.... The notion of "inherent" rights is simply that. A notion without an empirical basis.
[/quote]

Does the cow have a right to its milk?
[/quote]

I imagine it depends on who you ask, the cow or the dairy farmer.
[/quote]

So you do go for relativist/subjective ethics and law then?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2012 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 12:16, stoneunhinged wrote:
once you land anywhere near legal positivism that you missed the whole point.
[/quote]

If by this you're referring to my reference to logical positivism, then I think you've, in turn, missed my point (though I'm sure that's more my doing than yours). Bob made reference to the concept of rights (in a context) being "meaningless," which is a somewhat ambiguous term. "Meaningless" might refer to something that literally impossible or without meaning even in theory, like a square circle; alternatively, it might refer to 'logical meaninglessness," based (as I understand it) on some sort of verifiability. Essentially, per the logical positivists, something not subject to rational proof (I agree) or debate (I disagree). For instance, if I posit that my deceased born & bred in California cat would have preferred to live in Nebraska rather than Oklahoma. There's no way even in principle to ascertain whether that's a true statement, [i]but it nevertheless could be possible, unlike the square circle[/i]. The statement about the cat would be called "meaningless" by the logical positivists, but it's a different category of "meaninglessness" than the square circle.

Because of this dichotomy, it wasn't clear to me whether I agreed with Bob or not; I don't agree that the concept of rights without a social structure is like a square circle, but I do agree that it's meaningless like my claim about my cat - I can't PROVE that my belief is correct, but I nevertheless believe it to be a true claim Now, the forefathers of modern philosophy may have fine, internally consistent reasons for their positions; as I said above, while I agree with the logical positivists on meaninglessness re:proof, I disagree on meaningless re:debate. And I could probably find climatological and other differences between Nebraska and Oklahoma to support my claim about my cat, too.

To suggest that my position does Locke a discredit (again, if the comment was directed at me; I don't know that it was, only that it may have been. And if it was, I take no offense) is ironic in the Morrissette-ish sense of the word, because I do ascribe Truth - not mere internal consistency - to the notion of natural rights.

Unless I very badly misunderstand logical positivism, it's always relevant to the question of whether things that cannot be proven may, nevertheless, be true, if only to distinguish between different categories of meaninglessness - this things that cannot be [i]proven[/i], and those things that simply cannot [i]be[/i].
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 01:01PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 13:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:...then I think you've, in turn, missed my point (though I'm sure that's more my doing than yours). ...
[/quote]

Point being that concise language directed at the topic rather than the writer(s) would be optimal in advancing the dialog.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 01:03PM)
Lobo-

To clarify, I meant "meaningless" in the sense that the existence of natural or inherent rights isn't subject to logical proof.

Jonathan-

It depends. :eek:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 14:03, mastermindreader wrote:
...It depends. :eek:
[/quote]

Knowing and then being able to argue for those dependancies may be central to this dialog.

@lobo*
"different categories of meaninglessness" - that may deserve it's own literature. :)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 29, 2012 01:09PM)
Lobo, no, I wasn't referring to your post at all. The disservice to Locke would be to claim that there cannot be "rights" outside of civil society, when his whole definition of "rights" is explicitly pre-societal. It's as if I were to write a book called, "things that won't fit in a bathtub", only to have people 400 years later arguing I was wrong because things can indeed be fit into a bathtub. That wasn't the point of my book. I don't think. I haven't written it yet. ;)

Based on our conversations in other forums, I would pretty much guess that you and I agree on these particular things. We may disagree on some details, but I think we both accept some versio of natural law.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 01:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 14:05, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 14:03, mastermindreader wrote:
...It depends. :eek:
[/quote]

Knowing and then being able to argue for those dependancies may be central to this dialog.
[/quote]

But, then again, maybe not. (BTW - the :eek: symbol was to indicate a relativist joke.)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2012 01:10PM)
If the cat is black it would prefer to live in Oklahoma. This is ascertained from knowing how to ascertain why a black cat is black and being aware that California is sunny. Fly with the bumble fall with the rock to ascertain why black cat is black. There are ways of knowing things that are a mystery to science.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 01:23PM)
@Bob - what decides who decides that "may"?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2012 01:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 14:23, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@Bob - what decides who decides that "may"?
[/quote]

Does not compute. Please translate into a comprehensible question.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2012 02:22PM)
Does Schrodinger's cat have the right not to be put in the *** box? Is it natural to put a cat in a box? How much wood does a woodchuck have the right to chuck? If woodchucks were about to defoliate the Earth, would we have the right to exterminate all woodchucks so that we don't suffocate? Could we put woodchucks in boxes, and would they die? Who ate my Schnitzel?
These sorts of questions are why I barely sleep.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2012 03:08PM)
What right does a whistle pig have to whistle?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 14:28, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 14:23, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@Bob - what decides who decides that "may"?
[/quote]

Does not compute. Please translate into a comprehensible question.
[/quote]

You replied "maybe" to a question about a choice. In reply I asked you what (principle/code/framework) puts what person (who) to make the decision that resolves the "maybe" into a yes or no resolution.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 29, 2012 03:48PM)
Must we agree with Locke?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 04:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 16:48, magicfish wrote:
Must we agree with Locke?
[/quote]

At a glance there's plenty of disagree about in his stated position.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 29, 2012 04:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 16:48, magicfish wrote:
Must we agree with Locke?
[/quote]

No.

And neither must we agree with the Declaration of Indepence. We just need to be aware of what's at stake.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 29, 2012 05:31PM)
I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 05:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:
I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.
[/quote]

... and what decides on right(s)?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2012 05:40PM)
God.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 29, 2012 05:47PM)
No smile face Tommy? :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2012 05:55PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0PjKJ9nHS4
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 29, 2012 06:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:

I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.
[/quote]

... and what decides on right(s)?
[/quote]
The members of the society.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 29, 2012 06:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 19:07, magicfish wrote:...
The members of the society.
[/quote]

Okay, which one(s) and on what basis?

Divine right of kings? L'etat, c'est Moi?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 29, 2012 06:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 19:29, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 19:07, magicfish wrote:...
The members of the society.
[/quote]

Okay, which one(s) and on what basis?

Divine right of kings? L'etat, c'est Moi?
[/quote]

Them Aliens that look like us.

:comply:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2012 06:41PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 30, 2012 02:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:
I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.
[/quote]

I understand. And I respect your position.

In a bar, I'd try something like this:

1. I'd try to get you to accept the proposition that pain and pleasure are biological attributes. I'd pick something obvious, like the sensation of burning.

2. Then I'd try to get you to accept the proposition that avoidance of pain and the desire for pleasure are also biological attributes. Then, for economy's sake, I'd throw out pain for the moment and say this: the avoidance of the pain of burning is a biological attribute.

3. Next, I'd try to get you to accept the proposition that most animals are capable of associating fire with the pain of burning.

4. Lastly, I would try to get you to accept the proposition that a community homo sapiens sapiens, having the gift of intelligence, will regulate the use of fire to avoid the various pains and destruction that it's misuse can cause.

So in four easy steps, I get from the avoidance of pain to fire laws. Now, we're not at the point of Natural Law or Natural Rights, but it is at least a step in moving from the bold assertion that there are only "opinions" about how communities ought to organize themselves to the "fact" that rational creatures might have a biological cause for common opinions about the associated pleasures and pains of naturally occurring phenomena.

Now, maybe I'd have to get you to drink a LOT of beer to agree with me, but I think I could convince you over the course of an evening.

Maybe not.

But I'd give it a try, especially if you bought a round or two.

Pleasure and pain are huge incentives for organizing behavior.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 30, 2012 03:51AM)
Uh, #2 is supposed to read: "I'd throw out pleasure for the moment". I often say the exact opposite of what I actually mean. *sigh*
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 30, 2012 04:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 04:51, stoneunhinged wrote:
Uh, #2 is supposed to read: "I'd throw out pleasure for the moment". I often say the exact opposite of what I actually mean. *sigh*
[/quote]

I lack that problem, too.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 30, 2012 04:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 05:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I lack that problem, too.
[/quote]

LOL!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 30, 2012 05:39AM)
I accepted number 4 early on in the thread. And I strongly disagree with number 3. but these suds are goin down like water!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 30, 2012 06:02AM)
I mentioned earlier that members of a society enact laws in order to protect themselves. eg. fire laws.
But if I remember correctly, Hobbes and Locke's Hypothetical man in a state of nature is not yet a member of a society. I cant quite reme mber though. Some would argue that he has rights in that state. some argue that he doesn't.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 30, 2012 07:13AM)
Yes, right: man in a state of nature is not yet a member of society (which is their radical departure from Aristotle). But my point is that the only way to understand the way that the word "rights" was used by them (and later, TJ) is to understand what man would actually have in that state. In other words, it is disingenuous to apply some modern definition of the word "rights" to them. They meant what they meant, and not what they didn't mean.

So what did they mean? They meant something like: in nature, you are responsible for your own survival. Your "right" is to survive. Now, I entirely agree with you that this isn't the same meaning of "rights" that we use when talking about, say, voting or marrying or carrying a handgun at the shopping mall. But they nevertheless both used the word "rights" to describe the situation.

By the way, whether you disagree with three or not makes no difference: homo sapiens sapiens is capable of making the connection, so you can still get logically from 2 to 4.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 30, 2012 08:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 19:07, magicfish wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:

I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.
[/quote]

... and what decides on right(s)?
[/quote]
The members of the society.
[/quote]

Are we not then talking about privileges, rather than rights? One set are granted, the other not, but must still be recognized/defendable to mean anything. At least IMHO.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 30, 2012 09:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 08:13, stoneunhinged wrote:
Yes, right: man in a state of nature is not yet a member of society (which is their radical departure from Aristotle). But my point is that the only way to understand the way that the word "rights" was used by them (and later, TJ) is to understand what man would actually have in that state. In other words, it is disingenuous to apply some modern definition of the word "rights" to them. They meant what they meant, and not what they didn't mean.

So what did they mean? They meant something like: in nature, you are responsible for your own survival. Your "right" is to survive. Now, I entirely agree with you that this isn't the same meaning of "rights" that we use when talking about, say, voting or marrying or carrying a handgun at the shopping mall. But they nevertheless both used the word "rights" to describe the situation.

By the way, whether you disagree with three or not makes no difference: homo sapiens sapiens is capable of making the connection, so you can still get logically from 2 to 4.
[/quote]

Agreed. We should do this again sometime. Cheque Please.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jan 30, 2012 10:59AM)
Well now, that's worth a beer...or two!

Beer for everyone in this thread:

:stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout:
:stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout:
:stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout:
:stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout:
:stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout:
:stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout: :stout:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 30, 2012 05:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:40, tommy wrote:
God.
[/quote]

Which/whose god?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 30, 2012 05:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 18:10, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-29 18:40, tommy wrote:
God.
[/quote]

Which/whose god?
[/quote]

Zenu.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 30, 2012 06:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 10:27, magicfish wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 08:13, stoneunhinged wrote:
Yes, right: man in a state of nature is not yet a member of society (which is their radical departure from Aristotle). But my point is that the only way to understand the way that the word "rights" was used by them (and later, TJ) is to understand what man would actually have in that state. In other words, it is disingenuous to apply some modern definition of the word "rights" to them. They meant what they meant, and not what they didn't mean.

So what did they mean? They meant something like: in nature, you are responsible for your own survival. Your "right" is to survive. Now, I entirely agree with you that this isn't the same meaning of "rights" that we use when talking about, say, voting or marrying or carrying a handgun at the shopping mall. But they nevertheless both used the word "rights" to describe the situation.

By the way, whether you disagree with three or not makes no difference: homo sapiens sapiens is capable of making the connection, so you can still get logically from 2 to 4.
[/quote]

Agreed. We should do this again sometime. Cheque Please.
[/quote]

Agreed agreed

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 30, 2012 06:34PM)
Do people still believe that the Christian God is a different God to the Muslim God? How many Gods are there?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 30, 2012 06:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 19:34, kambiz wrote:
Do people still believe that the Christian God is a different God to the Muslim God? How many Gods are there?

Kam
[/quote]

How many you want?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 30, 2012 06:45PM)
Well, one would be nice :)

Twos a crowd really

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2012 06:54PM)
I'm partial to Thor, as far as gods go.
And if the god is Zeus, he goes [i]all the way.[/i]
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 30, 2012 07:22PM)
I like Odin.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 30, 2012 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 19:45, kambiz wrote:
Well, one would be nice :)

Twos a crowd really

Kam
[/quote]

So screw the polytheists then?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 30, 2012 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 20:56, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 19:45, kambiz wrote:
Well, one would be nice :)

Twos a crowd really

Kam
[/quote]


So screw the polytheists then?
[/quote]

Whilst I strive to love everyone equally, it is simple to view the reality in religious progression. One may value the fact that the most latest divine guidance seems to articulate a single God.

One must consider the possibility (and high likelihood) that Divine guidance is progressive and to view the guidance of the more recent religions to be closer to the Absolute Truth than the more earlier religions which promoted the concept of polytheism. Religious truth is revealed in alignment with the maturity of the individual, the community and society as a whole.....

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2012 11:59PM)
Aaaaaaaaand I'm out.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 31, 2012 07:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 23:49, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 20:56, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-30 19:45, kambiz wrote:
Well, one would be nice :)

Twos a crowd really

Kam
[/quote]


So screw the polytheists then?
[/quote]

Whilst I strive to love everyone equally, it is simple to view the reality in religious progression. One may value the fact that the most latest divine guidance seems to articulate a single God.

One must consider the possibility (and high likelihood) that Divine guidance is progressive and to view the guidance of the more recent religions to be closer to the Absolute Truth than the more earlier religions which promoted the concept of polytheism. Religious truth is revealed in alignment with the maturity of the individual, the community and society as a whole.....

Kam
[/quote]


Ooohhhhh, so consensus determins reality then. I getcha. So what about when "religion" progressess beyond the current "popular" monotheistic view?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 31, 2012 09:27AM)
I don't think I inferred a "consensus"......

I remember as a child I was told by my science teacher, "there are no electrons in the nucleus of an atom", then a few years later I was told that there actually are some nuclei that contain electrons....

If the educational process from our Creator progresses and evolves in the same way as our scientific education then if it progresses beyond monotheism, I will happily accept it with all the rational reasoning that has been given for the progression of religious truth from polytheism to monotheism

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 31, 2012 09:47AM)
You're right, Kam, you never said anything at all about consensus.

But actually, the only reality that can really be addressed is based on a consensus model as our own sensory limitations prevent us from truly observing objective reality. Those familiar with the writings of Robert Anton Wilson will be familiar with his explanation of so-called "etic" and "emic" realities.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 31, 2012 11:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-31 10:27, kambiz wrote:
I don't think I inferred a "consensus"......

I remember as a child I was told by my science teacher, "there are no electrons in the nucleus of an atom", then a few years later I was told that there actually are some nuclei that contain electrons....

If the educational process from our Creator progresses and evolves in the same way as our scientific education then if it progresses beyond monotheism, I will happily accept it with all the rational reasoning that has been given for the progression of religious truth from polytheism to monotheism

Kam
[/quote]

No, but you implied a "guided" consensus.

Yeah, consensus can be more representative of reality, as well as progression, but areas of consensus in religion, generally, have been representative of delayed acceptance of what science suggests, trends in bigotry, and trends in fantastical beliefs.
Trending towards monotheism isn't any different than trending towards virgin births, man gods, and "sacrifices," all of which were trending well before your "christ."
As for where religion is trending now, in a lot of ways, away.

Any who, this isn't a religious discussion.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 31, 2012 11:33PM)
Gdw, I was in no way talking about trends either.....trends generally reflect human interpretation of a specific reality and the human-inspired evolution of that reality over time...

What I am referring to is the uncompromising guidance from God, in the form of the Old and New Testament, the Quran and more recently the Bayan, and the Kitab-i-Aqdas, there is no consensus to be seen here, its just the way it is, the Word of God, you take it on its face value and interpret it for your own edification, or you leave it, the choice is yours......from my understanding there is no rational reason to believe in anything other than One, All-Conquering, All-Unifying, All-Loving God. Were you to study the Holy Words from all these religions it would be a wonderful unifying experience, the reality that there is only one religion will become a serious concept worthy of consideration as a result....I could be the only person on earth and were I to study the Words with an open heart, open mind, I would, without the need for any consensus, develop an understanding that there is only One God. So, in this regard (and maybe ONLY in this regard), consensus does not reflect reality in any way, the Word of God does....

And so it is with rights, if we were to truly believe that God is the Supreme Talisman and Guidance for human life, we would not need consensus to develop laws for human rights, we would only require the Word of God. The Word was not developed out of consensus, (it was revealed and it met all the requirements needed to advance a civilization beyond imagination, just look at the Christian and Islamic civilizations as an example of how advanced they were at the time) yet it forms the foundation for almost all consensus-driven bills and laws for society.

The problems have arisen when non-authoritative human interpretations have modified these foundations to allow them to meet the requirements of an ever-evolving civilization. Yet, if we were to search hard enough, we would note that the Word is renewed from age to age, and were humanity to not be so attached to the Word of the previous age, they would realise that all rights, bills and laws were being catered for and evolving by God Himself. The problems reflecting civilization and why the glorious times disintegrate is purely because:

- humanity evolves,
- the laws of the previous age no longer seem relevant,
- God sends down new guidance,
- humanity rejects it,
- humanity then pursues its own man-made laws based on the guidance from the previous age,
- civilization disintegrates,
- everyone has ideas on how to fix everything that's wrong with the world, then the cycle starts all over again (does this sound familiar?)

Bob, I'm off to read some of Wilson's work, you seem to value his works highly and I do have some of his works on the bookshelf but havent gotten round to it yet, he certainly is a fascinating man.....hopefully we can have some dialogue relating to his thinking :)

This is not a religious discussion, its a reflection on the history of the world and how it affects our rights, our lives and our future, and the rights of our children....

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 1, 2012 12:05AM)
The following is only intended as counter-point to Kam's comments-
The Noble Eightfold Path:
1.dṛṣṭi- viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be.
2.saṃkalpa- intention of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness.
3.vâc- speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way
4.karman- acting in a non-harmful way
5.âjîvana- a non-harmful livelihood
6.vyâyâma- making an effort to improve
7.smṛti- awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness, being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion
8.samâdhi- correct meditation or concentration, explained as the first four jhânas

Again, not sharing this to promote my religion. I believe that everyone's religious preference is their own business.
Only demonstrating how others have managed to promote their own systems of ethics/morality independant of what you are talking about.
It is not necessary that one believe in the same code as you do in order to be a good person.
Various Eastern cultures who have embraced these tenets have tended to do pretty well for themselves.
I am not saying that my way is better than yours, though it is better for me. Yours has value for you and I'm all in favor of that.
So you go ahead and do your thing and I will stick with mine and we'll all have churros sometime.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 12:19AM)
I raise my glass to you critter, you are a loving soul and your voice is cherished by all who cross your path, and I have nothing but respect for the points you have raised above. We would truly be a joyous people were we to all to live according the 8 points you have made all of us aware of above :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 12:20AM)
Secondly, why is it a counter-point? It builds on everything that I believe in :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 1, 2012 12:23AM)
Perhaps I misinterpreted something then.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 12:30AM)
:)

What you have outlined are the spiritual verities which ALL religions share. Spiritual truths are the core foundation for all individual conduct. What my post outlines is the society-organizing influences of religion. How to make decisions within a country? How to overcome the extremes of wealth and poverty? How to overcome problems of language, economics, agriculture etc etc? These matters relate to the "social" teachings of all the religions and it is these teachings that, when applied in parallel with the 8 points you outlined above, will influence and transform society into rapidly growing civilizations.

Social teachings must change, spiritual teachings are eternal, hope that is clearly explained, I am not the best at this :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 1, 2012 12:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 01:19, kambiz wrote:
...you are a loving soul and your voice is cherished by all who cross your path...
[/quote]

I wish that were true! I'm an neurotic and irritable and everybody knows it. But I am trying to do better.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 12:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 01:30, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 01:19, kambiz wrote:
...you are a loving soul and your voice is cherished by all who cross your path...
[/quote]

I wish that were true! I'm an neurotic and irritable and everybody knows it. But I am trying to do better.
[/quote]

No, I have noticed you bring joyfulness and humour to all the threads, and that is a meritorious quality :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 1, 2012 12:33AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 01:30, kambiz wrote:
:)

What you have outlined are the spiritual verities which ALL religions share. Spiritual truths are the core foundation for all individual conduct. What my post outlines is the society-organizing influences of religion. How to make decisions within a country? How to overcome the extremes of wealth and poverty? How to overcome problems of language, economics, agriculture etc etc? These matters relate to the "social" teachings of all the religions and it is these teachings that, when applied in parallel with the 8 points you outlined above, will influence and transform society into rapidly growing civilizations.

Social teachings must change, spiritual teachings are eternal, hope that is clearly explained, I am not the best at this :)

Kam
[/quote]

Alright then.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 1, 2012 01:02AM)
I got a lot of them 8 folds. Not all of 'em, but I'm in the mix.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 1, 2012 05:58AM)
What about a tri-fold card to wallet? Am I 3/8ths of the way there?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Feb 1, 2012 06:21PM)
It is possible to win with a bluff rather than folding. :bikes:
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 1, 2012 08:00PM)
Kam, so then what were all the "not trends" before monotheism became predominant, and all the "not trends" that predates christ?
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 1, 2012 09:03PM)
I'm not even good at all 8 of 'em.
I've always thought, and long before I started my current practice, that honestly trying to be a decent person is the most important part. Can't nobody make everybody happy all the time, and everybody gets in a crap mood, but actually working at it is admirable.
I don't mean that half-assed "but I'm trying, I just don't want to get up and do anything" garbage. That ain't trying, that's deluding ourselves. I mean really trying to pay attention to how we treat other people.
And I could care less what code someone follows to get there, as long as it involves some form of compassion then I like it. Doesn't have to be a religion, could just be a personal code. Just try not to be a Richard and it's cool to me. Not that I expect anyone to live to please me, just sharing what I like.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 09:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 01:30, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 01:19, kambiz wrote:
...you are a loving soul and your voice is cherished by all who cross your path...
[/quote]

But I am trying to do better.
[/quote]

This is such an integral part critter.....it is the striving that makes a person

"Let each morn be better than its eve and each morrow richer than its yesterday. Man's merit lieth in service and virtue and not in the pageantry of wealth and riches.... Guard against idleness and sloth, and cling unto that which profiteth mankind, whether young or old, whether high or low...."

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 09:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-01 21:00, gdw wrote:
Kam, so then what were all the "not trends" before monotheism became predominant, and all the "not trends" that predates christ?
[/quote]

Well, if you look at the pre-Judaic religions of Hinduism, Zorastrianism, Buddhism, and the Adamic religion (of which there are no known writings) you will find that the guidance provided by the Messengers of God related mainly to personal and self discovery. The concept of an external Creator was not within the requirements of that time, simply because the concept of what makes up a human being was still very very alien. As a result, these religions mainly taught spiritual development of the individual as well the as the acknowledgment of powerful natural forces which were termed "gods" at the time. There were no detailed society building teachings in these religions, simply because there were no structured societies to organize or provide guidance for.

Again, if we look at the needs and exigencies for each age, through historical research, we will see that the religion that was founded at that time met the needs and provided for the development of the human according to its needs and stage in its evolution, physically, mentally and spiritually.

I'm hoping that a certain amount of rationality is being outlined for what most would deem an irrational aspect of life, namely spirituality and religion :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 1, 2012 10:20PM)
Nope, sorry, still remains completely irrational.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 10:34PM)
Lol

Fair enough....I guess either I'm a bit lost, or you're being a bit unfair mate :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 1, 2012 10:44PM)
Other people's metaphysics are always irrational.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Feb 1, 2012 10:49PM)
It seems that way lol

You can only try, I would be interested to hear other people's metaphysics however, I love to be out-rationalised....just like I like to be out-double-lifted!

Kam