This world is not ours

[jahcs]

QUOTE(whyBish @ May 3 2005, 01:07 AM)
Exactly why Philosophy majors get paid so well 

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.)
[right][snapback]76167[/snapback][/right]

Give a room full of college kids an eighth at about midnight and you will get all sorts of philosophy, some of it quite good. Then, half the kids fall asleep and the rest hit Taco Bell and 7 Eleven. That would save the faculty some money on professors. :whistling:

NOTE: I do not endorse or condone the use of substances such as mj. This is just one story of what sometimes happens in College. :P

[Minionman]

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. 
[right][snapback]76134[/snapback][/right]

In the first situation, the other partner has to eat extra to make up for the energy and to feed the first partner.

And this makes a good example of a pointless use of logic. :P

[Minionman]

You don't need drugs to get strange observations. My brother's never had anything past caffeine as far as I know but he comes up with some strange ideas all thsi time.

[Archon_Wing]

You don't need drugs to get strange observations.  My brother's never had anything past caffeine as far as I know but he comes up with some strange ideas all thsi time.
[right][snapback]76199[/snapback][/right]

You certainly do not need drugs, but a few people have found it to work. ;) :blink:

[Griselda]

So, is the specimen spam and furry, signifying nothing?
[right][snapback]76105[/snapback][/right]

Why do you keep alone,
Of sorriest fancies your companions making,
Using those thoughts which should indeed have died
With them they think on? Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: what's done is done.

[whyBish]

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

My daughter is a cheerleader, over my initial objection a few years back.
[right][snapback]76141[/snapback][/right]

Just out of interest, what was your objection, and do you still hold it? If not what changed?

As to hijacking, I would have categorised it as this discussion has through dynamic forces evolved into something that has survived this long :P

[kandrathe]

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]

My 2 dineros for what it is worth. Baring the fact that your argument is unsubstantiated, and makes leaps of logic that defy reason, I believe the gist of what you are suggesting is that humans have no claim of ownership on the resources of the planet.

You say "It is not about economics or politics", and some tripe about human will. Well, philosophy is also the realm of human will and mental accuity, so what are we wanking on about for then? Because without this mental masturbation we would just be going about "survival of the fitest", right? Yet, we are a civil society and as humans we "rise" above our "survival instinct" to engage in discourse.

So to catch you up, let's review some hundreds of years of philosophy here; (Again, if you are serious, then you should read up on some.)

Let's start with Hobbes ground breaking work from 1651, Leviathan;

A Wikipedia summary,

In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of modern natural right as the foundation of societies and legitimate governments. In the natural condition of mankind, while some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others, none are so strong and smart as to be beyond a fear of violent death. When threatened with death, man in his natural state cannot help but defend himself in any way possible. Self-defense against violent death is Hobbes' highest human necessity, and rights are borne of necessity. In the state of nature, then, each of us has a right to everything in the world. Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).

But war isn't in man's best interest. According to Hobbes, man has a self-interested and materialistic desire to end war — "the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them" (xiii, 14). He forms peaceful societies by entering into a social contract. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath an authority, to whom all individuals in that society surrender just enough of their natural right for the authority to be able to ensure internal peace and a common defense. This sovereign, whether monarch, aristocracy or democracy (though Hobbes prefers monarchy), should be a Leviathan, an absolute authority. Law, for Hobbes, is the enforcement of contracts. The political theory of Leviathan varies little from that set out in two earlier works, The Elements of Law and De Cive (On The Citizen). (A minor aside: Hobbes almost never uses the phrase "state of nature" in his works.) Wikipedia - Hobbes

So, from a Hobbsian point of view, survival of the fitest is bad, and the solution is absolute control from the Monarchy, or Dictator to manage the distribution of resources.

Jump forward to 1690, and we have John Locke - Second Treatise of Civil Government Again, relying on a Wiki summary;

In The Second Treatise of Civil Government (sometimes The Second Treatise on Civil Government) Locke lays out his philosophy for the creation and mechanics of civil society. A theory of property is central to Locke's understanding of the role of civil government, a main function of which is to protect this property. Locke is concerned with developing a moral justification for individual right to property in the absence of the consent of the people.

Locke's attempt to develop a moral justification for individual ownership of property is in part a reaction to Filmer, who had argued that "the only way out of original communism was to assume that in some way or other every individual in the world had consented to every act of property acquisition". Locke begins by agreeing with Fillmer. He refers to scripture to show that "God as King David says, Psal. CXV. Xvj. Has given the Earth to the Children of Men, given it to Mankind in common". Locke accepts the premise that men share a right over the world. The problem then is to show that "Men might come to have property ... without any express Compact of all the Commoners." Locke's answer is that "every Man has a Property in his own Person" and "The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his hands, we may say, are properly his" (287-288). For Locke, a man may come to be morally justified in his individual ownership of property when "he has mixed his Labour" (288) with it.

It is clear to Locke that individual ownership of property is morally justifiable without the consent of the people. He also argues that it is practical, saying that if common consent were necessary, "Children or Servants could not cut the Meat which their Father and Master had provided for them in common, without assigning every one his peculiar part" (289). Therefore, individual ownership of property is established as both morally justifiable and practical. Wiki - 2nd Treatise

Locke argues that a person must own himself, and therefore anything one contributes efforts towards can also be claimed as their own. Now, jump ahead another generation to THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT by Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762 And, again a quick synopsis courtesy of Wiki,

Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is The Social Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order. Published in 1762 and condemned by the Parliament of Paris when it appeared, it became one of the most influential works of abstract political thought in the Western tradition. Building on his earlier work, such as the Discourse on Inequality Rousseau claimed that the state of nature eventually degenerates into a brutish condition without law or morality, at which point the human race must adopt institutions of law or perish. In the degenerate phase of the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men whilst at the same time becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law. Whilst Rousseau argues that sovereignty should thus be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens, known as magistrates. Rousseau was bitterly opposed to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via a representative assembly. Rather, they should make the laws directly. This restriction means that Rousseau's ideal state could only be realised, if at all, within a very small society. Much of the subsequent controversy about Rousseau's work has hinged on disagreements concerning his claims that citizens constrained to obey the general will are thereby rendered free. Wiki - The Social Contract

So here Rousseau begins to define the "society" that we live in today. And, finally, we get to some of the modern day thought with John Rawls and Wiki - A Theory of Justice with counterpoint by Robert Nozick in Amazon - Anarchy, State and Utopia. Rawls further defines our notions of liberal society in that he argues that we would come up with two principles of Justice; 1) each person has the most extensive basic liberties that are compatible for everyone having these liberties, and 2) social inequalities will be arranged so that they benefit everyone and such that we all have equal access to beneficial social positions. Nozick dissents in that he would limit the role of the state to that of a minimalist, "night watchman" which is all that can be morally justified. These two Harvard philosophers now form the most important modern understanding of liberalism and libertarianism.

As you can see, your simple notion of ownership has an extensive history of philosophical thought in the role of humans within a social context. What responsibility does one have to their fellow humans? I have touched on the briefest notions, however salient to our modern experience.

As, for my personal beliefs, well I believe we have a moral responsibility for future societies and to coexist with nature in a renewable eco-friendly manner sufficient to nurture the planet and humanities existence. We have become the masters of all we survey, whether we like it or not, now we must learn to live together in a globally just society. We humans have a legacy of harms to the environment, for which we owe recompense, but not at the cost of additional harms. Simply put, we must fnd a renewable and sustainable balance point. As you might have guessed by now, this topic is not only about philosophy, but also about politics, and economy.

I think this topic has gone the way of similiar ones posted here by those topic authors who are uninformed in the basics of the question. (e.g. non-physicists trying to grasp the physics concepts related to faster than light travel.) I challenge you to rise to the occasion and craft a worthy reply.

[jahcs]

As, for my personal beliefs, well I believe we have a moral responsibility for future societies and to coexist with nature in a renewable eco-friendly manner sufficient to nurture the planet and humanities existence. &nbsp; We have become the masters of all we survey, whether we like it or not, now we must learn to live together in a globally just society. We humans have a legacy of harms to the environment, for which we owe recompense, but not at the cost of additional harms.  Simply put, we must fnd a renewable and sustainable balance point.  As you might have guessed by now, this topic is not only about philosophy, but also about politics, and economy.
[right][snapback]76282[/snapback][/right]

I see the short answer in there, written with flowery prose and emphasising responsibility. Thumbs up, kandrathe. :)

[kandrathe]

I see the short answer in there, written with flowery prose and emphasising responsibility.&nbsp; Thumbs up, kandrathe. :)
[right][snapback]76289[/snapback][/right]

Oh. I agree. But, I think our friend Abramelin was challenging us to come up with more than the correct answer, but rather to explain how that answer was derived. It is plain to us that in general we are better off within a society founded on justice and equality, rather than the primal whims of grunting cave dwellers. Part and parcel of which is an understanding of property and ownership. Somewhere between pure communism (ownership is forbiden) and anarchy(grab what you can) rests our system where people are assured that their labor bears fruit. But, his poser is akin to asking one to explain how civilization came about, from tribalism to Aristotle, etc. I don't even want to touch the "existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy" as it would again require an explanation of the fractional reality of socio-political systems, and their disparate evolutions.

[Occhidiangela]

Just out of interest, what was your objection, and do you still hold it?&nbsp; If not what changed?

As to hijacking, I would have categorised it as this discussion has through dynamic forces evolved into something that has survived this long&nbsp; :P
[right][snapback]76258[/snapback][/right]

Her initial foray was a change from gymnastics to "competitive cheerleading" which is where teams of young girls try to out do one another with amazing stunts at no small cost to their parents. I do not consider it a valid sport, rather a spectacle and a money machine.

I pulled the plug a couple of years ago, the money was getting to be stupid, only a few of the girls (to include my daughter) were serious about being at all practices. I allowed tumbling to continue.

She tried out for the High School squad, and made it. So, I backed down. At least it was cheerleading with a purpose, and tied to the social connection of the high school. The prior activity was private clubs, etc, and when all was said and done . . . something that I would never recommend anyone do.

It is working out after all, though, so maybe I'm not as clever as I think I am. :D

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Oh. I agree.  But, I think our friend Abramelin was challenging us to come up with more than the correct answer, but rather to explain how that answer was derived. &nbsp; It is plain to us that in general we are better off within a society founded on justice and equality, rather than the primal whims of grunting cave dwellers.  Part and parcel of which is an understanding of property and ownership.  Somewhere between pure communism (ownership is forbiden) and anarchy(grab what you can) rests our system where people are assured that their labor bears fruit. &nbsp; But, his poser is akin to asking one to explain how civilization came about, from tribalism to Aristotle, etc. &nbsp; I don't even want to touch the "existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy" as it would again require an explanation of the fractional reality of socio-political systems, and their disparate evolutions.
[right][snapback]76337[/snapback][/right]

While a philosopher expends considerable energy on "why is what is how it is" and 'what should be" and "what is the perfection of what should be" whatever framework he derives must then be put into practice. So, while the power of an idea is quite possibly the most potent force on the planet earth, it is also the most susceptible to error (since humans are prone to error, in understanding, action and judgment) which makes the idea the most dangerous thing on the planet earth.

As you note, philosophy is limited in scope to that which can be implemented. The ideal state can, due to friction and diversity of aims, never be attained. This requires a subjective establishment of a "good enough" criterion which, being subjective, will always invite discussion and debate . . . and debate is a lot of what Philosophy is about. :lol:

Communism is one such idea, in terms of dangerous, but the one that scares me more is the "silver bullet" idea that both drove nuclear weapons development and deployment, and the current quest for "a tactical nuke that isn't too poisonous to the environment since it will explode mostly underground blah blah blah."

I posted a thread a while back on that. It strikes me as appropos to link the two conversations, since it is in the journey to implement an idea that Man's greatest successes, and greatest disasters, are revealed.

"And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, I drink therefore I am."

One risk inherent in the imperfection of the human mind is the risk that

"I think, come up with a dangerous idea, implement it, and none of us are, at all. By thinking, I plant the seeds to the end of all thought."

I'll have a drink, I think, while I still am. :D

Occhi

[jahcs]

Communism is one such idea, in terms of dangerous, but the one that scares me more is the "silver bullet" idea that both drove nuclear weapons development and deployment, and the current quest for "a tactical nuke that isn't too poisonous to the environment since it will explode mostly underground blah blah blah."
[right][snapback]76355[/snapback][/right]

It is a blessing and a curse that nuclear weapons bring so much radiation and contamination with them. Otherwise their use may have been far more prolific. Sometimes collatoral damage isn't an issue leadership worries about.
Arclight missions, fuel air bombs, carpet bombing, nuclear artillery shells, cruise missiles -- without the "dirty" part of nukes I fear they would be used far more regularly. Also, they would be cheaper to make because you wouldn't need to spend money on containment, shielding, waste storage, etc...

edit: Just to add, I know arclight missions, fuel air bombs, and carpet bombing all use conventional munitions, but substituting nuclear ordinance for those missions would be scary.

[kandrathe]

Well, and there is still the polarity of extreme that tug at us in our capitalistic democracy. We pay taxes, and much of that is for "our" own good. The defense of all, the education of all, the housing of all, the feeding of all, and for the improvement of the society. One side wants to limit the extent to which the government "augments" the society, whilst the other believes it to be the only fair means. Philosophy does play these mind games of pure communism, altruism, or "pure" ideologies in general, but don't forget that pragmatism, utilitarianism, and objectivism are a part of the craft as well.

I would say that it is only due to the philosopher's (intelligencia) that we do enjoy the freedoms we exercise today. I use the term "philosopher" in the sense of all those mental giants of the past and present upon which we base our current understanding of society in this case. And, yes, there have been the misuses of ism's as well by the powerful to torment, and exterminate millions. I wonder sometimes what Marx, or Lenin would have thought about Joseph Stalin's, or Pol Pot's abuse of power.

But now...

I think. I drink, and drink, and drink, and now I think I stink of drink. :D

And, to jahcs, I wouldn't fret too much about limited tactical nuclear warfare. It is and will probably always be an option of last resort, and for those of us who lived through the MAD days of itchy fingers on the "total world destruction" button, the prospect of our governments risking another round of nuclear escalation is slim.

[jahcs]

Not to worry, I won't be giving myself an ulcer. Since this was a philosophy thread I played the what if game. Nuclear weapons have such a stigma of "it would be the end of the world" and the facts of their contamination and other repercussions of thier use, that their use by sane people is doubtfull. We must remain vigilant for those insane folks who would use them, especially if those folks would describe the effects as "a pillar of holy fire to cleanse the Earth of (*insert religion or nationality here)."

[Occhidiangela]

I wonder sometimes what Marx, or Lenin would have thought about Joseph Stalin's, or Pol Pot's abuse of power.
[right][snapback]76445[/snapback][/right]

Marx, being a philosopher, would have been appalled that the glorious cause of The Workers had been hijacked by a thugs and powermongers. Marx conceived just enough of a utopia, post the "violent revolution" that he'd be sick at the means contaminating the long term ends.

Lenin, a revolutionary and not a philosopher, woud be less disturbed thanks to his own experience in having to get something done. He was not above breaking a few eggs himself. I don't think that he would have picked Stalin as his successor, given a choice.

Occhi

[whyBish]

And, to jahcs, I wouldn't fret too much about limited tactical nuclear warfare.&nbsp; It is and will probably always be an option of last resort, and for those of us who lived through the MAD days of itchy fingers on the "total world destruction" button, the prospect of our&nbsp; governments risking another round of nuclear escalation is slim.
[right][snapback]76445[/snapback][/right]

Well, if I can believe the media reports, the U.S. thinks North Korea has WMD. Maybe Saddam that's where Saddam hid his :rolleyes:

[kandrathe]

Well, if I can believe the media reports, the U.S. thinks North Korea has WMD.&nbsp; Maybe Saddam that's where Saddam hid his&nbsp; :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]76599[/snapback][/right]

You mean if you can believe the North Koreans. :shuriken:

Asian, European Ministers Urge North Korea to Return to Talks

[Occhidiangela]

Well, if I can believe the media reports, the U.S. thinks North Korea has WMD.&nbsp; Maybe Saddam that's where Saddam hid his&nbsp; :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]76599[/snapback][/right]

Do you refer to nuclear weapons? WMD is an imprecise and even dangerously vague term, derived from a Russian military term of art from the Cold War. I wish folks would not use it to discuss nuclear weapons, as it clouds the issue.

If one means nuclear weapons, one should refer to nuclear weapons, or nukular or whatever :blink: and not confuse gas or germ weapons with nukes. The difference in effect is in orders of magnitude.

Consider the sarin attack in Tokyo. Substitute for the sarin bomb going off a tactical nuke detonating. In the TOkyo Subway. Do the math, compare the body counts and long term effects to Tokyo.

No comparison.

Occhi

[Guest]

My 2 dineros for what it is worth. Baring the fact that your argument is unsubstantiated, and makes leaps of logic that defy reason

Premise 1: Man came from Nature (he is the result of evolution of life on earth)

Premise 2: You can't own what created you (regardless of whether that creation be through evolution or spontaneous creation)
For instance,you can't own your parents and you can't be owned by your parents because you are subjects and not objects.

Premise 3: An element of a whole doesn't own this whole.It belongs to it.
Man appeared among other animals through evolution of life.He is "a branch of the tree of life".Thus he is an element of a whole (which is Nature, that is animals,vegetables..)
For instance,you belong to a family.A member of a family can't own one's family.He is a part of this family.Same logic for Man.
Man comes from apes,apes come from A, A comes from B,B comes from C,etc ..


Conclusion: Man can't own Nature.

[Guest]

Locke begins by agreeing with Fillmer. He refers to scripture to show that "God as King David says, Psal. CXV. Xvj. Has given the Earth to the Children of Men, given it to Mankind in common". Locke accepts the premise that men share a right over the world.

Just because The Bible says that God "has given the Earth to the Children of Men, given it to Mankind in common" doesn't mean it's the truth.
Just because Locke says that "men share a right over the world", does not make his premise right.
The premises of Locke were not logically right in the first place:nobody has a moral right to claim something that what not created by him,no matter how he can work the land to make it better.
For instance,you make a chair.The chair becomes yours because you made it. You don't have a moral right to appropriate something that was not made by you in the first place and not given to you.This is the same kind of logic for land:it wasn't created by Man,thus it can't be owned by him.