The closing of the political threads is really becoming annoying

[barbelith]

Does the concept of 'rights' have any meaning to you outside of a legal context?

All rights outside of a legal context are based on arbitrary values. However we structure this we're still looking at differing shades of compromise as Dave points out.

people can't even discuss action figures in a civil manner

Whaaat?!

 

[devilof76]

All rights outside of a legal context are based on arbitrary values. However we structure this we're still looking at differing shades of compromise as Dave points out.

If reason is man's basic tool of survival, and reason does not function when it is throttled by the threat of force, then the right to live free of that threat is necessary for survival. There's nothing arbitrary about it. It is why political revolution went hand-in-hand with the scientific and industrial revolutions, and why political upheaval in the opposite direction was motivated by hatred for both science and industry.

Of course, you don't believe that reason is an absolute, so you're not going to see freedom as an absolute. You're going to see it as something that can withstand compromise. There will always be some pragmatic loophole, and I think that's a 'slippery slope' which you have failed to consider the long-range consequences of.

 

[barbelith]

If reason is man's basic tool of survival, and reason does not function when it is throttled by the threat of force, then the right to live free of that threat is necessary for survival.

It is not a given that reason is man's basic tool of survival, and the idea that man has a right to live free of threats to his survival requires an arbitrary value judgment. To put it bluntly, you're working from a faulty premise from the start. You're building a tower of non-arbitrary "reasoned" principles on an arbitrary and non-rational base.

Now as it happens I agree man has a right to live free of threats necessary for survival - but paying taxes is not one of these rolleyes and I would never fall into the rhetorical trap (goodbye Objectivism) of pretending my opening premise is anything but arbitrary.

 

[devilof76]

Right. There's not a shred of inductive evidence of the fundamental role that reason plays in human survival.

Did you miss the past three centuries? Or maybe you missed the Dark and Middle Ages (the perfect negative example).

It's not given, if what you mean by that is that it's self-evident. It is, however, a fact available via inference.

 

[barbelith]

There's not a shred of inductive evidence of the fundamental role that reason plays in human survival.

Reason is a marvelous thing but there's no evidence humanity can't survive without it. The vast majority of the animal kingdom lacks the ability to reason and does just fine. Not to mention the thorny challenge posed by evolution by natural selection. Perhaps you hypothesize man one day arrived fully formed with reason intact? At least the theists get around this vexing issue by just saying their god(s) mandated morality and to hell with it.

So perhaps you meant to say "survive in our current form" or something similar ... a premium on which is just as much an arbitrary value judgment as survival at all.

I would pay good money to see the faces of people reading this thread.

 

[devilof76]

Evolutionarily speaking, it would seem that cognition made a massive leap between the instinctual animals--who are incapable of reason, have limited range of consciousness, are entirely dependent upon the conditions of their environment, and live lifespans determined by factors completely outside of their control--and rational animals, whose range of consciousness is essentially limitless, and can adapt their environment to their needs, all the way to the extent of being able to control damage to, and the deterioration of their bodies.

Can we survive without reason? Even in a primitive situation, we need to figure out how to clothe ourselves, feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, venture into the open without being prey to stronger animals, protect infants, treat injuries, communicate via language, etc. Which survival need are we born knowing how to accomplish? Animals have instinct to provide them with knowledge of the actions they will need to take. We don't.

But maybe on the primitive level it's not so obvious. It could have been centuries prior that people figured out rudimentary solutions to these problems, so long that the solutions would seem self-evident to the people employing them. Where it becomes more obvious is when you begin to see the life advancing effects of higher technologies, which is why the Industrial Revolution is usually put forward as the clearest evidence of reason's role in human survival. By the end of the 19th century, the population of Europe had risen 300%. Natality rates did not rise, and emigration rates were extreme. What changed was a profound drop in mortality rates. Why? I think the answer is obvious. Especially since the most Europe's population rose in the previous centuries was a whopping 3%.

So primitive rational powers yield 30 year lifespans, and the level of rationality during the Dark Ages yields the same. But when we enter eras where reason is heralded as the sole means of dealing with reality, lifespans triple and wealth that was once only the province of kings is now available to anyone with a healthy middle class income. Were people really living in those irrational eras? Really? Or were they just lucky that not everyone was100% mindless?

 

[barbelith]

Evolutionarily speaking, it would seem that cognition made a massive leap between the instinctual animals--who are incapable of reason, have limited range of consciousness, are entirely dependent upon the conditions of their environment, and live lifespans determined by factors completely outside of their control--and rational animals, whose range of consciousness is essentially limitless, and can adapt their environment to their needs, all the way to the extent of being able to control damage to, and the deterioration of their bodies.

Yep. Placing a premium on that leap is an arbitrary value judgment.

Can we survive without reason? Even in a primitive situation, we need to figure out how to clothe ourselves, feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, venture into the open without being prey to stronger animals, protect infants, treat injuries, communicate via language, etc. Which survival need are we born knowing how to accomplish? Animals have instinct to provide them with knowledge of the actions they will need to take. We don't.

We don't actually need the bold bits to survive and the rest is commonly found in the animal kingdom. At any rate this is a red herring, because these things are only important if we put a premium on survival and there's no rational reason to do this if we don't arbitrarily assign a value to survival.

Where it becomes more obvious is when you begin to see the life advancing effects of higher technologies, which is why the Industrial Revolution is usually put forward as the clearest evidence of reason's role in human survival.

Actually this is what shows up the argument as rather empty, because humanity existed for several thousands years prior to the Industrial Revolution. And this is ultimately another red herring, because nobody is claiming that reason is anything other than a wonderful thing with respect to making it easier for us to survive.

In short, you're not building a case. You're arguing with other things that nobody is disputing - a rhetorical shell game.

 

[devilof76]

Yep. Placing a premium on that leap is an arbitrary value judgment.

The difference between animals and humans is obvious. Nothing arbitrary in the least. Evidence that the destination was reached is evident. You don't need to explain how it happened to know that it did happen.

We don't actually need the bold bits to survive and the rest is commonly found in the animal kingdom. At any rate this is a red herring, because these things are only important if we put a premium on survival and there's no rational reason to do this if we don't arbitrarily assign a value to survival.

It doesn't matter that these things are found in the animal kingdom. What matters is how humans accomplish these things, as opposed to how animals do it. Animals use instinct. Humans use reason.

(And seriously, untreated injuries? Infection, gangrene, death. No shelter? You live where, California? I live in Maine. I invite you to live outside anywhere east of the Rockies and north of Mason-Dixon between December and March. Naked.

And who needs language to survive? Anyone who wants a thought in their head. Communication is secondary, but it helps when there's more than one of you. Still, try making it on a tropical desert island without even the most basic code of symbols to think with. I won't be putting any money on that bet.)

And no, it's not arbitrary to put a value on survival. Life is what makes valuing possible, and necessary. Entities that face no fundamental alternatives have no need for values. Rocks do not value, nor do stars, nor does dust. An immortal would have no need for values because no matter what, it's existence is guaranteed. Mortals do require values, and it is because they will cease to exist if the requirements of their survival are not met. Mortal entities face a constant fundamental alternative: existence vs. non-existence. If they are to exist, they need to value survival. The dead do not.

No survival, no valuing.

If you don't see the factual basis by which a distinction between the living and the dead can be made, then I have to conclude that your existence is an arbitrary construct, and that I'm having this conversation with myself.

Actually this is what shows up the argument as rather empty, because humanity existed for several thousands years prior to the Industrial Revolution. And this is ultimately another red herring, because nobody is claiming that reason is anything other than a wonderful thing with respect to making it easier for us to survive.

Humans living in irrational eras by the grace of inertia. They lived by what they looted from those they killed, or those who their masters killed. What existed to be looted was the product of thinking minds, without which they would have had nothing. They lived in a state of bare subsistence, and their lives--brutally short--generally were not worth living. Why do you think faith in an afterlife was so attractive?

Remove the fruits of reason from human existence, and we'd all be dead in a week. Remove the freedom to produce, trade and use those fruits as our own happiness demands, and short of a commitment to total religious fanaticism, we'll wish we were dead in a week.

 

[devilof76]

And the last I checked, a contract was a voluntary agreement in which both parties agreed to the terms.

 

[DarthNeil]

[sips his tea gingerly]

 

[Shropt]

Wow, seriously, again? Another political thread?

I feel bad for non-US board members that must sort through these ridiculous and monotonous threads.

 

[Agent0028]

I feel bad for the mods who must sort through them.

 

[barbelith]

The difference between animals and humans is obvious.

Placing a premium on that difference is arbitrary.

It doesn't matter that these things are found in the animal kingdom.

That is, of course, another arbitrary judgment.

(And seriously, untreated injuries? Infection, gangrene, death. No shelter? You live where, California? I live in Maine. I invite you to live outside anywhere east of the Rockies and north of Mason-Dixon between December and March. Naked.

But humanity survived without medical knowledge and without shelter for hundreds if not thousands of years, so this isn't really relevant.

And who needs language to survive? Anyone who wants a thought in their head.

There you go again, pushing the goal posts over and presenting another arbitrary value judgment.

Still, try making it on a tropical desert island without even the most basic code of symbols to think with.

Do bears use a "basic code of symbols" to think with? Do fish? Do microbes?

And no, it's not arbitrary to put a value on survival. Life is what makes valuing possible, and necessary.

You are arbitrarily placing a value on "valuing" itself.

Mortals do require values, and it is because they will cease to exist if the requirements of their survival are not met.

And of course yet again arbitrarily valuing "existence."

If you don't see the factual basis by which a distinction between the living and the dead can be made, then I have to conclude that your existence is an arbitrary construct, and that I'm having this conversation with myself.

This is a non sequitur.

Remove the fruits of reason from human existence, and we'd all be dead in a week.

Again "not being dead" is an arbitrary value, and of course we've already seen the problem your perspective presents for humanity re: evolution by natural selection. You do a nice job in talking circles but you haven't even begun to make a case that any of these assertions don't involve an arbitrary value judgment. Of course this is one of the several major failings of Objectivism but to be fair no philosophy has been able to get past the first hurdle.

And the last I checked, a contract was a voluntary agreement in which both parties agreed to the terms.

Your voluntary agreement manifests in your decision to remain in this country. You know the terms and are free to leave.

 

[Malice]

Lecture..............


i love toys and specially polystone like p!tu says in his videos, "sidesshow where's our polystone air freshener"!

you got that deliciously right malice! bunk politics!

 

[pixletwin]

We should just rename this the devilof1775 vs barbelith thread.

 

[Malice]

We should just rename this the devilof1775 vs barbelith thread.

kurgan you are correct yet again!

 

[Agent0028]

We should just rename this the devilof1775 vs barbelith thread.

Can we also place bets for how long the debate lasts?

 

[barbelith]

Can we also place bets for how long the debate lasts?

About five more seconds - I'm off to Bali for two weeks first thing in the morning! On the plus side I imagine it will be much easier to promulgate the usual round of McCain/Palin lies without a fact checker around.

Also now Devil can try to become the first philosopher in history to discover a non-arbitrary first principle in my absence.

 

[devilof76]

Also now Devil can try to become the first philosopher in history to discover a non-arbitrary first principle in my absence.

This discussion is over. Existence exists, and that's axiomatic. Existence is identity. Consciousness is conscious. Both of those are axiomatic as well. Throw causality in there, and what you have is a complete metaphysics.

If you think that any of that is arbitrary, I don't know what to tell you. Reality is, it's something specific, and being aware of anything whatsoever is sufficient to prove both statements beyond even an unreasonable doubt.

I suspect that you will deny them, first of all because those are first principles, and they're anything but arbitrary, but also because it's conceivable to you that bear, fish and microbes, uh, think.






And pix...76.

 

[Darklord Dave]

It all depends on what you mean by "is."