For the life of mine... I cannot understand you!

[Areopagite]

And that is what I said, too. So we are in agreement. We call something “good” if it “furthers” life, and call something “bad” if it is contrary to life. Of course the whole picture is a bit more complicated. The deer with a broken leg is bad for the deer, but it can be good for the predator. And since the predators keep the deer population in check, ultimately it is good have predators. There are levels and levels of hierarchies to examine.

Yeah, the deer’s broken leg can be said to be good for the predator because it actually helps fulfill the predator, but it’s not good or the deer, because … it draws him nearer to non-existence. Definitely, there are different levels and hierarchies of goodness. I agree.

I think we’re largely seeing eye to eye here. We’ll at least can agree to agree for now.

What you say is all true, but it does not dig deep enough. “Essentially” (pardon for the pun) you perform an abstraction, and separate the “important” features from the “non-important” ones - which is correct. Where the problem lies is that the “important” part does not exist in a vacuum, it is intricately related to some “use”.

I don’t think this applies to natural objects, such as plants, animals, humans … and I guess inanimate things. You can abstract the essence of a lion without any intent to ever really use it for anything.

I would say, though, that man-made things (artifacts) whose essences are determined by a human mind and made to essentially be something useful … would definitely be related to “use.”

An example: the telephone’s “essence” is to allow a conversation with someone far away. That is the “essence” of the phone for the user. The conversation is the information, and the “noise” on the line is just… noise. However, for the engineer, who examines the line for clarity, the ongoing conversations are simply “noise”, and the actual noise on the line is the pertinent information. You see, there is again no “abstract essence”. It all depends on what you are interested in.

Hmm. I don’t think so.

First of all, (and you may agree with all this) I would say (and I did not come up with this) that though spoken words are sound waves in their matter (i.e. what they are made up of), they have a specific configurations imposed on them by the speaker … they are meaningful in their form (i.e. how they are shaped).

I would say that your proposed definition for a telephone (a thing to allow a conversation with someone far away) is not technically accurate or distinctive or … precise enough, for you could say the same things about megaphones, morse code, chatrooms, etc. The dictionary said a telephone is “A system that converts acoustic vibrations to electrical signals in order to transmit sound, typically voices, over a distance using wire or radio.” And I guess that works.

Secondly, even though the engineer may be checking the noise clarity, a thing that does not seem to reach the heights of abstract relevance, it actually is happening because of the abstract concept of telephone. *Why does the engineer check for noise clarity? Why would he care? * Of all the things he can do with telephones, why would that one be important? I would say that noise clarity is a thing required for telephones to fulfill its nature (of transporting the sound in its preserved form(s)). If no one had in mind the purpose/essence/nature of telephones, then they would not see the purpose of fine-tuning the phone signals. So even there, the abstract essence of the telephone must exist (in one’s mind, of course … but based in reality and also applied to reality).

For a buyer, who wants good tasting, delicious apples the essence of the apple is “good taste”. For the merchant, who wants to sell the apples, the essence is the “pretty look”, so the buyer will be enticed to buy. If the apple happens to be rotten on the inside is of no relevance for the merchant.

If the apples start to rot, then they stop being good apples and distance themselves away from what an apple is. So, I think it still works here, unless I’m misunderstanding you.

(In response to the definition of human being “rational animal”)
Yes, but this is very generic. You could also say that humans are the only animals who believe in supernatural. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “human is as human does” - which is not helpful.

I don’t think this definition is too generic because it includes everything that a human is does not include anything that a human is not.

Also, I think the definition of “the only animals who believe in the supernatural” would not be a good definition for humans, because many humans do not believe in the supernatural … but I would still call those people human. You could maybe say “only animals that CAN believe in the supernatural” … but this would seem to be a bit narrow compared to “rational animal.” It does imply rationality, and thus you could state it as “a rational animal that can believe in the supernatural.” But that would be like defining “car” as “a road vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine that can be used for driving to Montana.” The part “that can be used for driving to Montana” is extraneous, though true. The fact is, it can be driven to a lot of places because of what it is, just like humans can believe in a lot of things because of what they are (a rational animal).

Now, once again, if you deny the importance of the concept of essence, you run into a lot of trouble because you have no justification for why you call some things human and some things non-humans. There must be something humans have in common amongst their differing characteristics, some essence they share. And it must be something other than merely in our head but based on reality. I don’t know if that helps in the least.

No, the “thing” as you say does not change, only its **perception **or **evaluation **does. We usually consider cannibalism “wrong”, but in some dire circumstances it is not wrong at all.

When you say “thing” are you referring to “morality” or “natural law” or “objective moral good/evil”? Because if so, I agree with you.

I think cannibalism (shudder) can be justified in some circumstances, but that then implies that there are objective moral laws that determine the rightness and wrongness of acts. Otherwise, what else determines when it’s okay to cannibalize and when it’s not. Some standard has to exist for that to be the case, and that standard has to be objective and in nature. Because if it’s merely determined by what we believe, then cannibalism could possibly never be wrong or never be right (depending on what we believe).

Continued on next post …

 

[Areopagite]

Of course I agree with your reasoning, but the slaveholders would not.

Well, I would be hopeful that they would. It may depend on what slaveholder I’m talking to. I may convince a slaveholder that a human by definition is a “rational animal” and that African Americans would therefore be human because they are capable of abstract thought (which can be demonstrated in various ways, either with math, language, etc.). Who know, sometimes simple things like that could do it for people. If it doesn’t, it either means there is some other misunderstanding or else he’s being willfully stubborn and is bent on lying to himself for some reason. But I’ll assume he’s got something mixed up and try to find out what it is.

In our time, most of the Western societies hold the prevalent opinion that individual freedom is precious, and it should be protected. But not all current societies agree. For example in Singapore most people prefer a strong, autocratic government, which curtails individual freedom, but enhances stability. It is quite obvious that freedom can bring instability, and that an enforced stability decreases freedom. Some people (and societies) prefer freedom, some others prefer stability.

Once again, not sure what you’re saying. You seem to be equating “what [some] people want” with “what they should have,” and I’ve always contested that point. Are you saying that since many Singapore citizens want autocratic government that therefore they should have autocratic government … or rather, that autocracy would be good for them since that’s what they want? Just because someone wants something, doesn’t make the thing good for them.

On the other hand, you might be saying this: *both freedom and societal stability are good things for humans to have, but the two cannot be reconciled. Thus, there are (at least) two separate human natures, rather than just one. * Right?

First of all, there are many uses of the word freedom, and I suppose what you mean here is “permissiveness.” I am not in favor of absolute permissiveness, and I don’t think it’s good at all. One should not be permitted to do any conceivable thing. Obviously. Freedom, in one of its more useful definitions, is the ability to pursue the good. In a very permissive society, crimes can abound and thwart your pursuit of the good … and thus a very permissive society is not a very free one. On the flip side, very autocratic societies often thwart the pursuit of the good as well. They often make too many laws that are unnecessary, making lives complicated, making it hard to pursue the good. So, both kinds of government that you mentioned, I think, are flawed. They do not assist people in becoming better humans. The widespread thinking nowadays is that it’s either no laws or all laws, whereas, it’s somewhere in between.

As another example, under the fallen communist regimes everyone was equally poor and there was strong sense of security. People had the “right” to work, their jobs were secure, anyone could walk unmolested in the streets, even young girls, at night. It was a police state with very little crime. With the change all that disappeared. There is a lot of crime, no job security, there are some ultra-rich people.

Once again, these are opposites extremes and are both flawed. Your description of the communist regime is a little idealistic, too. Remember: the Gulags. The Gulags killed more people than the Nazi Concentration camps. There was a lot of death, as well as counter-productive government with millions of people starving to death. There perhaps wasn’t too much crime … except the crimes to humanity done by the communist government. But, indeed, it’s bad now too. Which one’s worse? It’s a tough question. I’ll just say: both.

Actually it (the statement: “Universal Negatives cannot be proven”) is a very positive statement. Using a little different words: “nonexistence cannot be proven”.

No, it’s a negative statement, because you’re using the word “not.” The statement “universal negatives can be proven” would be an affirmative statement, whereas that statement with the opposite quality is a negative statement.

I assume you think “Nonexistence cannot be proven” is somehow equivalent to an affirmative because it’s a double negative. But just because “nonexistence” is a negative term, it does not affect the quality of the proposition. It can be rephrased to “Nonexistence is not a thing that can be proven.” The Subject would be “Nonexistence” and the Predicate “a thing that can be proven,” with negative copula “is not.” The shorthand form is “All S is not P” which is a Universal Negative. This is true even if the Subject (nonexistence) is a negative term. These are rules of formal logic, and hence your statement is a Universal Negative.

Of course, in an axiomatic system one can prove negative statements, like: “there are no positive integers (‘p’ and ‘q’) with the property that p/q precisely equals the square root of two”. But how would one prove something like “there are no pink unicorns, which can sing”?

You are saying, I think, that universal negatives in deductive systems can be proved, but universal negatives in inductive systems cannot. I agree with the first, but not the second.

It is true that you cannot prove that there are no pink unicorns which can sing, unless you have some recourse to omniscience. However, can you prove that there are pink unicorns which can sing? That’s a universal affirmative. Can you prove it? No. Also, I believe I can prove the particular universal negative that there are no unicorns in my house. That’s a universal negative, and I can very well prove it by looking around in my house.

Hence, some universal negatives can be proved, and some universal affirmatives cannot.

Continued on next post …

 

[Areopagite]

This is where the cracks start. Just read what I said above, some humans prefer freedom with less security, others prefer more security and less freedom. There is no universal human nature. If there would be, the whole problem would be easier, though it would not disappear.

You are saying that since people desire different things, people are essentially different. I suppose we would be wrong to call both groups human then. Or, we could conclude that those desires are not essential human desires.

Now, desires and whatnot can become so habituated to certain people (whether by personal choice or nurtured behavior) that they become, what is called, “Second Nature.” This is different from the nature that is also called “essence.” Even though we are all basically the same kind of being, we have a less central level of ourselves which can change without changing us completely. We can have changing thoughts, loves, skin tones, muscular build but these differences do not put us into a completely separate category. There is something that we all share that makes us “human.” If there isn’t, the word “human” becomes meaningless. And I don’t know if we want to go down that route.

Another trouble is the existence of “scarcity”. When I have enough food, it is obvious that it is good to share it. It will not hurt me, and it would help others. Clearcut decision. But what should one do if he already lacks food? Share that little he has? This is the well-known lifeboat dilemma, which has no solution. If I keep the food, he will starve. If I give all the food, I will starve. If I share the food, we both starve. No solution to the question: “how should I behave?”

I think the situation is that you are no morally obligated to give the food to the other person. It’s perfectly acceptable to have the other guy starve. However, with that said, it would be heroic if you gave the food away. It would not be required, but it would be “beyond the call of duty.” Heroism is not demanded of by morality. But it becomes an extraordinary good if you achieve something that’s not simply required of you. Does that help?

 

[david_friol_1]

Look at yourself from the outside. First, you assert - unanimously - that the highest value for God is love. You also say (and I agree) that love must be manifested in actions, a “proclaimed” love without actions is useless. Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender. Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil. Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”. But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Don’t you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

Hey Spock
Are you gay?
God bless you today!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

 

[Cristiano]

Please tell me at what time the :slapfight: is going to start.

 

[david_friol_1]

Please tell me at what time the :slapfight: is going to start.

Hey Spock
Maybe I should clarify so people do not take my last remark as some sort of mockery. It was not but was made because if you are then I would address you more personally which I prefer. And if not then more general statements would be made thats all. If no response then I will not bother.
Peace to you Spock