This world is not ours

[Archon_Wing]

that is odd idea, I never thought about that, yeah! I think the world is not belongs to someone or somebody, maybe belongs to the God, I do not know. I am not  a Sage.
[right][snapback]76097[/snapback][/right]

This may be the wisest remark in this thread. ;)

[Count Duckula]

I'd like to buy a fowel :P
[right][snapback]75976[/snapback][/right]

I come with a hefty price tag--think you can handle it? :P

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 .

No offense, but this sounds like an opening to Wild Kingdom.

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 .

I read too much into things. (Comes with the territory, I guess.) I think I agree with Nystul that you're mourning the loss of your thread and decided to create a new one where you can make all the rules. This is the same presumption humankind has over the Earth, that they can claim overship over something that isn't quite anybody's and tame that something to their exact specifications.

I think that sharing land is an impossibility when people consider property to be wealth. When people respect not only the land itself but those who also exist on that land, that's when the harmony happens.

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 .

Then I argue that a human's desires form humanity. We're water-injected bags of meat if we have no purpose, and humans gain purpose through achieving goals, and humans create goals based on their desires.

I also argue that if you don't stop hitting the space key before you punctuate your sentences, I'm revoking your license and breaking your thumbs. Style be damned--Mavis Beacon is your own personal Jesus.

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts , no quick trivial answers in my thread . This is a serious topic , I want you to be sincere .
[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

Oh, this is just asking for a smartass. Luckily, Doc came along and filled that capacity beyond all expectations, guest starring Occhidiangela and featuring WarLocke on the drums.

[jahcs]

Admonishing Preamble:
This is a philosophy thread; there are no right or wrong answers to the root question. It's all the (il)-logic we throw into philosophical discussions that get everybody's panties in a bind. As soon as hypothesis, theory, and opinion are labeled as fact or presented in a way to make it appear irrefutable, it will be viewed with consternation by some and attacked vehemently by others.
The best philosophical discussions occur when BOTH sides enter into it with an open mind. By posting a disclaimer in the very first post you showed your mind was already made up about what you would find in this thread. When you look for the negative side of human nature you will find it.

Short answer:
Take care of your land, conserve resources, and do not contaminate the land, for your stay here is limited and your children will become the land’s steward after you. Ask your neighbor to do the same.

Long Answer:
Occhi and Whybish seem to have covered it well. Archon's post about seeing things from man's point of view is key to this discussion as well.

Cheers,

jahcs

[Occhidiangela]

1.  I come with a hefty price tag--think you can handle it? :P

2.  Oh, this is just asking for a smartass. Luckily, Doc came along and filled that capacity beyond all expectations, guest starring Occhidiangela and featuring WarLocke on the drums.
[right][snapback]76108[/snapback][/right]

1. And worth every penny. B)
2. Just tryin' to keep the customers satisfied, satisfied. (S & G) ;)

Occhi

[Archon_Wing]

Why is the short answer longer than the long answer? Ponder that for a moment if you will.

Ok here's a few thoughts on philosphy and the topic at hand.

Consider a man. Ok, you can consider a woman too (change all pronouns to she). Set yourself back to the dawn of civilization. He only cares about his basic needs at this point- that is food, warmth, and reproduction. But life is hard. He's cold because he only has a crappy fur cloth from a few dead squirrels. He tried to grab a few berries but he's afraid of the bear that mauled poor Bobby. Sex just sucks if you're cold and hungry. And so he must struggle for what he wants.

But he had a brain and used it. Just like the occasional chimpanzee, but with more thought. He developed the spear, and he no longer had to be afraid of becoming a bear's dinner-- the bear was the dinner now. He's built a little hut to keep himself warm. Eventually, he would come to learn how to store and grow food and so he could sit and relax.

And so life became better. Sure there were disease epedmics and diarraha but there were moments that he was not troubled. He actualy felt good at times. And so he said to himself, "Damn, I feel good... can I feel better?" He became more aware of his surroundings. When his friend Fred took a dump in the crap bucket, he began to notice that it smelled so bad. He had to do something about it, and thus the greatest invention of man-- the toilet-- came into existence. But man was vain, and started to recklessly take dumps as opposed to holding it in like before. Soon, the local lake became very polluted and smelly. But so we ask, was the man so wrong in inventing the toilet?

But the man could care less, until one day he wanted to feel even better than he did before. And so he started mixing various things together and accidentialy squashed a few grapes. The resulting drink made him feel a little woozy and he began to share this drink with his friends. The more he drank, the more odd things he saw. He and his friends laughed at the dancing trees and other things that would come out of nowhere.

And the man asked his friend, "You know I had this crazy idea, we eat and drink. That's really good, but is there any point to this? I mean we can do so much. There must be a reason for us being here." His friend replied, "You need another drink." So they drank and they came up with strange ideas. Ideas like that some harmful things they do could be wrong. Maybe they really shouldn't try to backstab each other or take another man's piece of bread when they weren't looking.

And so philisophy was born.

DISCLAIMER:
-This post wasn't supposed to make any sense.
- Any symbolism in this post is purely conicidential
- This story is NOT real.
- I do not claim philosphers are all under the influence of some drug
- I do not suggest that this thread gets better with a few beers.

[Jester]

"Saying that Rights and Morality can only be a human construct is philosophically wrong . Kant proved that morality is one universal value which exists above human constructs . For instance "justice " and "freedom" are universal values that exist and can exist regardless of Man."

While I must profess a near-complete ignorance of Kant, that statement seems to border on the impossible. Could you perhaps give us some of Kant's reasoning on this matter? Because, as it stands, that seems to be an amazing thing to claim.

And, of course, what Occhi said above, just because Kant said it doesn't make it "philosophically right."

Jester

[Rinnhart]

Meh, nevermind. Not worth it.

[whyBish]

If you think that Morality is not universal and thus is only human , then you need to read Kant.
[right][snapback]76087[/snapback][/right]

LOL

Obviously Kant is a Godlike figure and THE LAST WORD on morality. THEREFORE we should ignore all work that preceeded and followed his.

Are you not aware that there are multiple bases for human morality, based on differing sets of assumptions... e.g.:

Utilitarianism: - it is right if no-one ends up worse off
Environmentalism - it is right if the environment does not end up worse off
Communism - it is right if we all have equal income
Egoism - It is right if it is right for you
Kantian theory - respect for people
Feminism - It is right if females are not subordinate and the experiences of females are taken seriously
Subservience - It is right only if it benefits someone else, but costs yourself
etc. etc.

There are a number of criticisms of Kantian theory. I can give you some of them if you like, but you would probably learn more by looking them up for yourself.

Of course, if you said:
"Under Kantian ethics, the ownership of land is immoral"
then we'd be closer to a philosophical statement, and on that particular one I might be forced to agree :P

[whyBish]

1)  What little I know about Game Theory, and I wish I understood it better, is that Morality is an element of various survival strategies undertaken by social animals, of which Man is a subset.

2)  Conflict, not harmony, appears to be THE natural condition.  The evidence is all around you in the physical world. 

3)  All current animal species come from a SINGLE specie at the beginning of the world .
Assumption, not fact.  It is a theory, unproven, although there is a lot of evidence pro, far less convincing evidence (and much rhetoric) con. 

4)  Science shows us that equilibrium, a philosophical cousin to equality, is not a dynamic condition.  Life is inherently dynamic.

Occhi
[right][snapback]76090[/snapback][/right]

1) Yay. a nice meta-moral point of view to give value to the thread! (In my opinion of course :P ) (Is cheerleading morally right? :D )

2) Well, Id charge you of sample bias there, given your occupation... I would say that harmony is the 'natural' condition until there is a shortage of resources, or a 'difference in intended use (e.g. sheep wants to live, but wolf wants a meal). However, I could argue that even this condlict is for harmony (i.e. sheep is protecting self to protect offspring, wolf is 'attacking' sheep to feed offspring). Perhaps my concept of 'harmony' is just different? Even if we talk about things like wars, there is still harmony amongst conflict, the harmony required for each sides organisation.

3) Well, there are some leading theories that even claim that early life on earth started multiple times. Also see S. Kaufmann(sp?) for good origin of life arguements. Evolution is also commonly mistaken to be a slow gradual smooth change, but it usually contains large discontinuities followed by long periods of stability.

4) I don't understand what you mean. I was thinking that you meant to say static instead of dynamic in the first sentence... but I would like some clarification (and the source of this assertion ;) )

[whyBish]

Why is the short  answer longer than the long answer? Ponder that for a moment if you will.

[right][snapback]76111[/snapback][/right]

When the short answer doesn't reference two posts that were 5 pages each ;)


I'll leave it to Doc to perform Freudian interpretation of your anecdote :P

[whyBish]

Meh, nevermind. Not worth it.
[right][snapback]76114[/snapback][/right]

Exactly why Philosophy majors get paid so well :whistling:

[Occhidiangela]

2)  Conflict, not harmony, appears to be THE natural condition.  The evidence is all around you in the physical world.

2) Well, Id charge you of sample bias there, given your occupation... I would say that harmony is the 'natural' condition until there is a shortage of resources, or a 'difference in intended use (e.g. sheep wants to live, but wolf wants a meal). However, I could argue that even this condlict is for harmony (i.e. sheep is protecting self to protect offspring, wolf is 'attacking' sheep to feed offspring). Perhaps my concept of 'harmony' is just different? Even if we talk about things like wars, there is still harmony amongst conflict, the harmony required for each sides organisation.

whybish. I think I am working from a semi-Hegelian construct here. It is a general observation that life is a continuum and a process of change. Harmony in a macro sense implies a lessening or lack of Conflict, while the Hegelian model of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (the last being a product of change via conflict) is an ongoing dynamic. Chemical reactions that take place all the time, like photo synthesis, are a physical embodiment of the idea.

I was not asserting War at all, War is a very special, political case of the general concept of Conflict. Trade embargos or price "wars" are a non violent manifestation of Conflict, as are debates. The natural state of change, at least part of which is via Conflict, is tied to my dysfunctional family analogy. Families can have rows that are not War, but are Conflict and Disagreement.

You will note also that there is no recognized "Occhi School of Philosophy" anywhere, and certainly not at the University of Wallamaloo. Crack two! :lol:

3)  All current animal species come from a SINGLE specie at the beginning of the world .
Assumption, not fact.  It is a theory, unproven, although there is a lot of evidence pro, far less convincing evidence (and much rhetoric) con. 
3) Well, there are some leading theories that even claim that early life on earth started multiple times. Also see S. Kaufmann(sp?) for good origin of life arguements. Evolution is also commonly mistaken to be a slow gradual smooth change, but it usually contains large discontinuities followed by long periods of stability.

Understand the non linear nature of evolution. Have seen a few articles on that, most interesting theories. I have also read a bit considerable of the Creationist school of thought, which to my taste is a bit short on evidence (beyond flood patterns) and long on unanswered questions. Abramelin was stating his case as though it were fact. The fact is that Life Is. :) How It got To Be is still a puzzle to resolve, though I'd suggest many of the pieces are available.

4)  Science shows us that equilibrium, a philosophical cousin to equality, is not a dynamic condition.  Life is inherently dynamic.
4) I don't understand what you mean. I was thinking that you meant to say static instead of dynamic in the first sentence... but I would like some clarification (and the source of this assertion  )

No, I absolutely did not mean static. If you establish equilibrium, you have a balancing of forces and the process of change in conditions ends: at least temporarily, uou are in a static condition. (Think of a bridge, the picture in my head came from the standard balancing of forces problem in mechanical engineering.) By dynamic I meant in the sense of undergoing a change, which is the opposite of being in equilibrium. (Think also thermodynamics, heat flowing from a higher heat volume into a lower heat volume if the boundary permits flow.) I can see where it might have been unclear. Sorry. Life, as per my above comment, is a process of change; it is dynamic. (OK, for some people, it is virtually static due to their being glued to a couch!)

Source of my assertion? The physical world. Even when I sit still, my lungs exchange oxygen, cells die and are created, and my body undergoes changes of state as it builds up waste, slowly but surely, from the process of oxygenating cells and passing the dead tissue along its various paths to exit. Each day I am a slightly different person than I was the day before, if for no other reason that I learned something new and I aged slightly. (Damn that last bit!)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Sex just sucks if you're cold and hungry.

Without throwing too many double entendres your way regarding how at least half of a couple could see hunger appeased by sex, I'll point out that if you are cold and hungry, sex would do two things to reduce misery: take your mind off of your hunger, and warm you up.

Your disclaimers are excellent, and I do think a couple of beers makes anyone a potential amateur philosopher. :)

Occhi

EDIT: Preview is my friend. :P

[Occhidiangela]

When the short answer doesn't reference two posts that were 5 pages each  ;)
I'll leave it to Doc to perform Freudian interpretation of your anecdote  :P
[right][snapback]76117[/snapback][/right]

They get paid well when they write a book and it sells. See Norman Vincent Peale.

Occhi

[Tal]

You will note also that there is no recognized "Occhi School of Philosophy" anywhere, and certainly not at the University of Wallamaloo.  Crack two!  :lol:

Occhi
[right][snapback]76133[/snapback][/right]

Minor nit: "Crack tube!"

:)

Talwhowishesalreadyhecouldcracktubethisam. ;)

[Occhidiangela]

Minor nit: "Crack tube!"
:)
Talwhowishesalreadyhecouldcracktubethisam. ;)
[right][snapback]76137[/snapback][/right]

Thanks! By the way, the site misquotes a lyric. On the Matching Tie and Handkerchief Album, the line for Hume is

"David Hume could out-consume Schopenhaur and Hegel"

Is "Abbos" Aussie slang for Aborigine? I had always (since I bought the album in 1974) wondered at what that line was referring to. "What's an abose?" I wondered for years. Now I get it, I think! Yay Tal!

Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Whybish, maybe you need to start your own thread? <_< I mean, geez, we wouldn't want to hijcak the "serious" , "philosophical" discussion Abramelin initiated, would we? :blink: Ooops, too late!

1) Yay. a nice meta-moral point of view to give value to the thread! (In my opinion of course  ) (Is cheerleading morally right?  )

Cheerleading and morality. Consider that President Bush was a cheerleader at Yale, and bring it on! :shuriken:

Cheerleaders, to quote one of the lines in the movie "Man of the House," have the reason d'etre of "accentuating the positive." Digression: The current governor of Texas, Rick Perry, was a cheerleader in college. University of Texas, I am guessing, and one of those guys with a megaphone who tosses the girls in the air and catches them. He put in a cameo appearance in the film. Just what we need more of, politicians vamping for Hollywood cameras. :P

Why did I watch that film? I blame my kids. My daughter is a cheerleader, over my initial objection a few years back. I have not asked her if it is morally right, though I will, and I predict her answer to be "It's fun, and it keeps me in shape." She can do standing back flips and all kinds of other tumbling tricks.

Occhi :shuriken:

[Tal]

Thanks!&nbsp; By the way, the site misquotes a lyric.&nbsp; On the Matching Tie and Handkerchief Album, the line for Hume is

"David Hume could out-consume Schopenhaur and Hegel"

Is "Abbos" Aussie slang for Aborigine?&nbsp; I had always (since I bought the album in 1974) wondered at what that line was referring to.&nbsp; "What's an abose?" I wondered for years.&nbsp; Now I get it, I think!&nbsp; Yay Tal!

Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three?

Occhi
[right][snapback]76139[/snapback][/right]

Abbos is Aussie slang for Aborigine. As for rule number three....No P*sound of hand getting slapped over mouth*mmblmbl!

[Occhidiangela]

As for rule number three....No P*sound of hand getting slapped over mouth*mmblmbl!
[right][snapback]76144[/snapback][/right]

What, is there a ninja poofter in your office? :shuriken:

[Occhidiangela]

Exactly why Philosophy majors get paid so well&nbsp; :whistling:
[right][snapback]76118[/snapback][/right]

Another problem philosophers run into is the ultimate futility of their profession.

"Pure reason inevitably reaches for what it cannot grasp." (A nice summary of some of Kant's thinking here.)