This world is not ours

[Guest]

Hello,

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .
This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?
The right to be free and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream .

This is a philosophical topic . It is not about economics or politics . Politics and economics come from the will of humans . I am not talking about what Man wants , I am talkinng about who he really is , his real place no matter what he wants .

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts , no quick trivial answers in my thread . This is a serious topic , I want you to be sincere .

Abramelin

[Mithrandir]

You take a *huge* logic leap when you say that humans are like "visitors in a house" and thus cannot lay claim to any part of Earth because it would be like a visitor laying claim to someone else's house. Are their correlations between the two ideas? Of course, but you can't say that they are completely equivalent to each other.

The analogy further breaks down because if humans are the "visitors" on this "house" (i.e. Earth), then who owns the house? Not everyone believes in God, so that is therefore an unacceeptable answer if you're trying to apply this to the entire human race. I argue that if no one owns a house, it is absolutely morally acceptable to move in and lay claim it as your own as the "visitor".

For your answer, look to "Nature" itself and dispense with the analogies. Every living creature on this planet fights to protect its territory, mating rights, food source, etc. Any creature that didn't have a concept of land ownership would be destroyed and go extinct. It is not morally wrong to try and survive.

[Guest]

You take a *huge* logic leap when you say that humans are like "visitors in a house" and thus cannot lay claim to any part of Earth because it would be like a visitor laying claim to someone else's house. Are their correlations between the two ideas? Of course, but you can't say that they are completely equivalent to each other.

Man was created among other animals . We are just one kind of animal among other ones . We didn't create this Earth . Thus we have no moral right to own it .
Besides , Man was created by Nature , we come from it . Thus we belong to it , we belong to a kind of family ( that is animal and vegetable kingdom ). You cannot both belong to a family and own it . Either you own something or you belong to it .

The analogy further breaks down because if humans are the "visitors" on this "house" (i.e. Earth), then who owns the house? Not everyone believes in God, so that is therefore an unacceeptable answer if you're trying to apply this to the entire human race. I argue that if no one owns a house, it is absolutely morally acceptable to move in and lay claim it as your own as the "visitor".

It belongs to itself as a living entity . Nature is like a living being made of an infinity of living beings . It is what we call "ecosystem" .

For your answer, look to "Nature" itself and dispense with the analogies. Every living creature on this planet fights to protect its territory, mating rights, food source, etc. Any creature that didn't have a concept of land ownership would be destroyed and go extinct. It is not morally wrong to try and survive.
[right][snapback]75908[/snapback][/right]

Animals don't have free will . They are not aware of their existence , I doubt that they can catch any concept of ownership of land . They rather obey their will to live . Any animal will fight to stay alive , but not for the ground on which it stands .

[Guest]

This is a philosophical topic . It is not about economics or politics . Politics and economics come from the will of humans . I am not talking about what Man wants , I am talkinng about who he really is , his real place no matter what he wants .

[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

Useless post. You have framed the topic in such a manner as to prevent actual free disscussion.

[Doc]

Of course he has Ghost... As Bolty stated oh so very well, he is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. He just made the hole square.

He wants soooo badly to fit in and feel the groove.

[Guest]

Useless post. You have framed the topic in such a manner as to prevent actual free disscussion.
[right][snapback]75911[/snapback][/right]

Eh , I haven't framed anything . The topic is open . It's about philosophy and not politics or economics . If it were , it would be a dead end topic because anyone could argue what Man wants or do is right instaed of who Man is/what is his place no matter what he wants .
You want to hijack and/or end the thread . You have no right to do so for you are not a mod or the owner of the site . If I wanted to do in every thread what you did in mine , you wouldn't have said the same as you do here . Thus you are hypocrite for you only want to stop it .
This is an intolerant and narrow minded behaviour .

[pakman]

The answer is 42, but I would like to know the ultimate question, made you could tell me.

[Guest]

Of course he has Ghost... As Bolty stated oh so very well, he is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. He just made the hole square.

He wants soooo badly to fit in and feel the groove.
[right][snapback]75912[/snapback][/right]

Why come here and troll ?
Isn't that against the rules ?
If you don't like my thread , stay out of it .

[Guest]

The answer is 42, but I would like to know the ultimate question, made you could tell me.
[right][snapback]75914[/snapback][/right]

This is what I didn't want in my thread: incoherent posts just made to make fun .
And you claim to be elitists people , you prove me wrong here .

[pakman]

It's not incoherent. It makes sense in perfect English. However, you obviously don't get the joke, but those that do understand the point.

You are just trying to make up lost ground after the past topic you started. It's not going to get you anywhere. They best way to do that is to post constructive comments in existing topics, don't start your own an say "no flames, making fun, etc. allowed" because that's all you'll get. You're learning the hard way.

Besides I didn't say I was 31337. In fact, I'll come right out and say that I'm an (edited).

[Guest]

Of course he has Ghost... As Bolty stated oh so very well, he is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. He just made the hole square.

He wants soooo badly to fit in and feel the groove.
[right][snapback]75912[/snapback][/right]

How interesting , what I said in my previous thread proves me right at least for DOC , let me quote myself :

Do you talk about philosophy ? No, and even if you do , you quickly hijack the topic or make fun of it . I made some . All I got is trolling , or quick answers , incoherent posts . Is it that that you call elitism ? You are elitists for english , but you are not elitists for the topics and the answers that you post.

[Guest]

It's not incoherent. It makes sense in perfect English. However, you obviously don't get the joke, but those that do understand the point.

You are just trying to make up lost ground after the past topic you started. It's not going to get you anywhere. They best way to do that is to post constructive comments in existing topics, don't start your own an say "no flames, making fun, etc. allowed" because that's all you'll get. You're learning the hard way.

Besides I didn't say I was 31337. In fact, I'll come right out and say that I'm an (edited).
[right][snapback]75917[/snapback][/right]

I have understood the so called joke . However , it doesn't make me laugh or even smile . You may be the only one to laugh for making fun of my thread , good job .
Your joke is incoherent , and above all it's a bad one . Good job for your ambiguous answer .
Let's get back to the topic .
Or do you want to hijack my thread again ?

Edit: I have corrected typos for english elitists ....

[Occhidiangela]

Hello,

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .

This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?
The right to be free  and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream .

This is a philosophical topic . It is not about economics or politics . Politics and economics come from the will of humans . I am not talking about what Man wants , I am talkinng about who he really is , his real place no matter what he wants .

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts , no quick trivial answers in my thread . This is a serious topic , I want you to be sincere .

Abramelin
[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts ,

Then follow your own guideline, and delete your post. :P

OK, why not toss a few ping pong balls back over the net?

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

Assumption, assertion, unproven. Man is. That we know. Man either evolved or was created. It matters not, for the purposes of considering whether or not you wish to argue the concepts of property, ownershipe and theft; the issue of labor inhering value; or the difference between dominion, domination, and stewardship of the planet. Or all of them.

Man is, and if Man wishes to continue to be, Man must make provision for a habitation conducive to long term survival. Tenant on Earth, eh? So, to whom does man pay rent? Other Men, last I checked. Nature has yet to serve an eviction notice. What Nature does do, now and again, is destroy -- see earthquakes and tsunamis -- and in doing so engages in creative destruction. In your anthropomorphising Nature, you seem to neglect Nature's destructive and violent nature. Equity and balance require a broader look than you give.

This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

You assert Tennancy, yet you choose to ignore Gift. Is Earth a Gift to Man, or is man merely part of a larger ecosystem, which permanence is in doubt? Prove your answer, if you can. I hold the answer unknown and unknowable to you and I.

Back to your contractual model, you ignore squatters rights. Tenants can accrue property rights and value by their improvements on land. You can claim ownership of anything you find, and it is yours unless someone can prove it is not.

Read that last sentence again, as it deals in the exercise of Will, a feature of Man, be He evolved or Created. If Nature created Man, Nature gave him Will. Ownership can begin with a simple claim. Human custom and Law is whatever we bloody well make up, and can agree to.

Did you notice that neither Mother Nature, The Universe, nor God ever show up in Court? They needn't waste their time. Law and property rights are man made. Ant hills are ant made. A Dam or a Bridge is also man made, but very real. Likewise real are the Laws and practices of Man. These laws and conventions are agreed on structure around which societies, which are a coping and survival mechanism Man has developed, exist. Likewise, the lines on the map which define boundaries and countries are as real and as righteous as Man makes them. The line on the map is as important as Man, or some subset of Man, chooses it to be.

Your next bit needs a lot more work before you take it on the road.

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?

Why indeed? So, what is your answer?

If the answer were simple, that is how it would be. Conflict is born of dozens of factors, which includes Will, or Volition. People disagree, that is in their nature. Why do you assume in your question that Man will act un-naturally and "simply share" everything? That Man will stop Disagreeing? Why do you assume that there is indeed One Right Answer, a condition necessary for Disagreement to end?

Ownership ideas Man has made, however, your assertion of causation is both unfounded and unsupported. Ideas and models of ownership are a matter of fact, the "why" is variable. Part of the answer to "why" ownership models arose is as a byproduct of finding ways to Agree, to live harmoniously, particularly in times and conditions of scarcity.

Is Man, collectively, wise enough to sustain his habits to date? That remains to be seen. You appear ready to write Man off as a hypocrite, a poacher, and a squatter who has no rights to, or on, Planet Earth. Man has whatever Rights He makes up, and I hold Earth as a Gift to Man. (It matters no the agency, God or Nature. Prayer was invented, IMO, for such sentiments as "Please, don't let Man, as a whole, screw this up.")

Rights and laws are what "we," Man, say they are. Some social models are universal, some less so. Each will stand until someone, or something like the laws of physics or biological process, proves it wrong or overturns it.

Earthquakes and tsunamis change the land or lines on a map, just as bad farming, slash and burn, war, or other misuse can turn land into desert or change the lines on the map. How then, pseudo-philosopher Abramelin, is Nature any better than Man? Nature kills without remorse, without conscience.

Is your next rant going to be about the unrighteousness of the Earth and Nature?

Occhi

[Doc]

Edited- No matter what your opinion, please try to avoid personal attacks.

-Griselda

[Minionman]

"Ownership" is just a way to describe who gets to use particular pieces of land in certain ways for certain things. When Isay I "own" the house, that means peopel have agreed that I'm the one who gets to live there, and decide who else gets to be there or not.

Also, the idea of "ownership" works in many different ways. I didn't make my parents or brother exist, but Iregularly talk about them being "my" brother, and people in families are expected to take care of each other more than usual, even though people usually didn't "make" them.

Although you said not to stick economics or politics into this, ownership is pretty closely related, so there are some connections to get into. When people "own" land, the effects are mostly people related. IF they want to chop down trees, the trees don't simply fall over because they arte owned by people. What owning land really means in this case is that most other people will allow the one who owns the land to make more decisions about the trees, and try to grow them or chop them down.

About "mans place in nature", as far as I'm concerned, people, and everything else, makes its own place for itself instead of being squeezed into a "real one. A "real" place is wherever things make it to be. I seriously doubt that, say, life started out in roles that effected weather, temperature, atmosphere gases, erosion, and all those other things it does today, but that's how its worked out. Peopel, in this viewpoint, will fit into the planet wherever they decide to do so.

[Occhidiangela]

And you claim to be elitists people , you prove me wrong here .
[right][snapback]75916[/snapback][/right]

No, you are the one calling names and assigning labels. Lay off the self righteous rot, already. It's not playing well.

Occhi

[WarLocke]

This is what I didn't want in my thread: incoherent posts just made to make fun .
And you claim to be elitists people , you prove me wrong here .
[right][snapback]75916[/snapback][/right]

Whatever you do, don't tell him the question to that answer!

It's been theorized that if we ever know both the Question and Answer, the universe would implode and something even more chaotic would take its place.

It's also been theorized that this has already happened.

[Rinnhart]

If you are really interested in philosophy, you would be reading a book rather than a forum. Most of this "discussion" has been carried out several thousand times.

That said, the topic is moot as we're simply a twist in an infinite chemical reaction and all human concepts of thought and existence really don't matter in the long term, which is what you seem to be reaching for.

And if you stop spacing before your punctuation your posts would be half as incoherent and less likely to earn the elitists' wrath until after they'd read the drivel.

And "42" is always a funny reply to questions regarding the meaning of life.

[Doc]

That said, the topic is moot as we're simply a twist in an infinite chemical reaction and all human concepts of thought and existence really don't matter in the long term, which is what you seem to be reaching for.
[right][snapback]75930[/snapback][/right]

Damnit, you can't go around saying that crap around professional bullsnotters, er, Philosophy Doctorates... You will destroy what little meaning we have in our over-thought obcessive compulsive lives! Why, you could make some poor soul drink hemlock you heartless bastard! FIE and SHAME on you! Have you no soul?

I am in rare form tonight. I dunno what it is. My dreadlock ariels must be picking up some odd cosmic vibes tonight.

Voltaire said "Hell is other people."

Who brought marshmallows?

[Occhidiangela]

:D

And "42" is always a funny reply to questions regarding the meaning of life.
[right][snapback]75930[/snapback][/right]

Dear Rinnhart:

Why would a serious person, one seriously interested in the human condition, read anything as trivial as "The Book With The Answer In It!" He'd run out of half thought out, half framed questions if he had The Answer!

For mere Lurkers to presume to laugh at something as serious as the human condition is a pox upon the Holy Internet, where all discourse is brilliant, or would be required to be if King Abramelin were to ascend the Throne. Oh, wait, he did, see Doc's post. We Lurkers merely ask for coherence, a tough enough standard to meet.

But I digress.

Laughing at The Big Questions might lead to laughing at God, or Nature, or whoever in Primal Causation made this mess in the first place! Were they both, or all, just a little drunk when they made the platypus? There's a question worth considering!

To your keyboards, Lurkers! We at last have a question worthy of our wit, time, and interest!

The Platypus: Intelligent Design or Drunken Creational Farce? :blink: Make your case, for or against, you elitist, effete snobs! And make sure any images you include adhere to posting guidelines, or Dee Bye will PWNZ UR NOOB 4$$!!!

Sorry, I digress again. Oh Caffeine, you slavedriver!

As to laughing at Creation, whoops, Umberto Eco already covered that, didn't he?

In conclusion, you are right again, Rinnhart.

You are hereby awarded the palm. :D No, wait, you are awarded 42 palms, no wait, you are awarded 42 palms clapping? Oh no, what hath Occhi wrought? Would that then equate to 42 jerkoffs, or 21 very serious jerkoffs? Abramelin, can you help us out here, you may have some competence on this angle. Come on, help a brother elitist out!

This philosophy thing will drive me to drink. Maybe I should thank someone.

Thank you, Unknown Ancient Egyptian Genius, for inventing beer. :whistling:

Am I done here? I think so. :wacko:

Occhi