wilderness: Nitroadict: So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual? Well that person is obviously not fully living up to the potential of what billions of humans do. It's why we call it a "coma state".
Nitroadict: So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual?
So if a human is born, the moment they are born, in a coma state, the axiom "humans act" still applies to this individual?
Well that person is obviously not fully living up to the potential of what billions of humans do. It's why we call it a "coma state".
You always catch the fallacy that I rush past. Good eye!
wilderness: Nitroadict: I find it interesting that the only human act you seem capable of doing is quoting Rothbard every other post. If I wanted to debate Rothbard, I'd bring some study material & sit next to his grave. Then why post in this thread or why read this thread if you don't want to read Rothbard and learn about natural law? Is somebody coercing you?
Nitroadict: I find it interesting that the only human act you seem capable of doing is quoting Rothbard every other post. If I wanted to debate Rothbard, I'd bring some study material & sit next to his grave.
I find it interesting that the only human act you seem capable of doing is quoting Rothbard every other post. If I wanted to debate Rothbard, I'd bring some study material & sit next to his grave.
Then why post in this thread or why read this thread if you don't want to read Rothbard and learn about natural law? Is somebody coercing you?
Obviously, no. I just want to read hasheem's objections without an indirect appeal to authority with walls of text with every other post. I'd probably think less arrogance of him :)
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I guess it's hard not to look arrogant when I quote material that I've studied instead of presuming myself to be lightyears ahead of scholars whos every breathing moment was dedicated to the study and elaboration and polishing of these topics; or when everyone around me is so painfully ignorant and unlearned.
In the words of some chump: "Go read a book!"
hashem: I guess it's hard not to look arrogant when I'm constantly right
I guess it's hard not to look arrogant when I'm constantly right
Goodness, you might just be right. My purpose of questioning wasn't refutation, though. It was to see if it was a convincing argument (to me), which, despite your consistent argumentation, seems shaky to me still.I will admit, if it made sense to me, I would agree. I used to agree to natural law simply because I assumed it was true, but exposure to newer information & argumentation made me doubt previous faith in it. Perhaps I will one day see the light in your argumentation? The future is always changing, afterall.
hashem:...everyone around me is so blatantly ignorant and uneducated.
hashem:In the words of some chump: "Go read a book!"
Nitroadict: Or maybe some see natural law as an ought, and not necessarily an is.
Or maybe some see natural law as an ought, and not necessarily an is.
I'm thinking ethics is more about the "ought" and natural law is more about the "is". And it is in ethics that the ought-is gap disappears if a person lives what the person thinks they ought to live. And if the hypothesis "ought" is livable in a successful way, then the experiment is a success. Of course my scope of what success is or is not includes liberty. And liberty isn't going to kill anybody unless of course self-defense is necessary to protect a person's liberty to continue on learning. Me included.
*Edited
hashem:It wouldn't matter if you called it a hypertronic spacemodufier. It remains a law as it cannot be defied; and remains in the nature of humans to act. A natural law.
Mixing synthetic a priori judgments, and the laws of nature into one category is idiotic, the synthetic a priori category is a priori while the laws of nature of empricial, one involves a problematic judgment, the other is apodictic.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Nitroadict:Or maybe some see natural law as an ought, and not necessarily an is.
lol
Natural law has nothing to do with with the fact value dichotomy. Perhaps you didn't read either of the 2 "walls of text" that I posted. Natural law is the laws of nature. It is not an ethical system. It has nothing to do with the "is/ought" gap.
hashem: I guess it's hard not to look arrogant when I quote material that I've studied instead of presuming myself to be lightyears ahead of scholars whos every breathing moment was dedicated to the study and elaboration and polishing of these topics; or when everyone around me is so painfully ignorant and unlearned. In the words of some chump: "Go read a book!"
In the words of laminustacitus: actually answer my questions before you declare victory, there are at least two very direct questions I've asked you that you have yet to answer.
In the words of laminustacitus: stop merely quoting Rothbard, and start writing for thyself.
hashem: Nitroadict:Or maybe some see natural law as an ought, and not necessarily an is. lol Natural law has nothing to do with with the fact value dichotomy. Perhaps you didn't read either of the 2 "walls of text" that I posted. Natural law is the laws of nature. It is not an ethical system. It has nothing to do with the "is/ought" gap.
I appreciate your grown-up attitude :)
In the words of hashem: Rothbard was both clear and right, so I quote him.
wilderness: Nitroadict: Or maybe some see natural law as an ought, and not necessarily an is. I'm thinking ethics is more about the "ought" and natural law is more about the "is". And the ought can be the is if you live it. Liberty isn't going to kill anybody unless of course self-defense is necessary to protect a person's liberty to continue on learning. Me included.
I'm thinking ethics is more about the "ought" and natural law is more about the "is". And the ought can be the is if you live it. Liberty isn't going to kill anybody unless of course self-defense is necessary to protect a person's liberty to continue on learning. Me included.
Indeed. I will have to spend more time on this before absolutely refuting or accepting.
laminustacitus: hashem: I guess it's hard not to look arrogant when I quote material that I've studied instead of presuming myself to be lightyears ahead of scholars whos every breathing moment was dedicated to the study and elaboration and polishing of these topics; or when everyone around me is so painfully ignorant and unlearned. In the words of some chump: "Go read a book!" In the words of laminustacitus: actually answer my questions before you declare victory, there are at least two very direct questions I've asked you that you have yet to answer.
wilderness: Nitroadict: Or maybe some see natural law as an ought, and not necessarily an is. I'm thinking ethics is more about the "ought" and natural law is more about the "is". And it is in ethics that the ought-is gap disappears if a person lives what the person thinks they ought to live. And if the hypothesis "ought" is livable in a successful way, then the experiment is a success. Of course my scope of what success is or is not includes liberty. And liberty isn't going to kill anybody unless of course self-defense is necessary to protect a person's liberty to continue on learning. Me included. *Edited
Nitroadict:Did you try morse code?
I don't think he'd understand, or even acknowledge, a script Rothbard did not write it.
By the way, Hashem, would you mind doing me a favor, and typing out a list of at least ten natural laws?
laminustacitus:Mixing synthetic a priori judgments, and the laws of nature into one category is idiotic, the synthetic a priori category is a priori while the laws of nature of empricial,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I rather liked the wave-particle duality reference.
Juan:And please do explain how you manage to believe in ridiculous fairy tales while at the same time trying to shoot down rational philosophical positions you don't even understand.
Len Budney: Fred Furash:Just because I quoted someone on a theological matter doesn't mean I agree with their political views. I'm focusing neither on religion nor on politics, but on epistemology. The main attack on religious people is usually epistemological: that they embrace "blind faith" in preference to rationality, whereas atheists embrace rationality--as evidenced particularly by the very fact that they are atheists. My response is, superficially, an appeal to the tu quoque fallacy: the individual accusing others of irrationality is himself guilty of irrationality. I explicitly demonstrated it in the case of any liberal, which obviously includes Sagan and Dawkins. But I claimed much more than that: I claimed that all humans adopt one or more premises which are not rationally supported. I could move on to cite Ayn Rand, who was particularly flagrant in this regard, if only to irritate any objectivists reading the thread. But the point of observing that all humans are motivated partly by rationality, and partly by other principles, is to attack directly the assertion, implicit in the atheists' argument, that any deviation from absolute rationalism is inherently a defect. Given that no human is purely rational, your premise compels you to: kid yourself that you are absolutely rational, as Ayn Rand did; or recognize yourself as defective. The former is, needless to say, irrational. It's as irrational as a short man asserting himself to be tall. But the latter is, more subtly, a religious conviction! It requires one to adopt an unrealizable ideal as a standard, against which one must confess that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of Pure Logic." Put slightly differently, it represents the irrational premise that humans must conform to a standard to which conformity is not possible. It's as irrational as defining dependence on oxygen to be a defect in humans. Existence exists. A is A. And humans are what they are. Fred Furash: If a wise and fair God does exist, surely it will judge people not by how much they worshipped it... If a sentient being vaguely fitting the description of "God" exists, then by virtue of His sentience, He probably has a different definition of "wise and fair" than you do. Since "wise and fair" are therefore not well-defined terms, any conclusion you try to draw from His "wisdom and fairness" is guaranteed to be useless. All you have told us is that a God who doesn't conform to your expectation would be deemed by you to be either unwise or unfair. Observe that you have commited the irrationalism of attempting rigorous reasoning from subjective terms. Your argument is as irrational as this one of mine: if a tasty ice cream exists, it will be vanilla. Fred Furash: Then again I dislike the very concept of worship as a useless waste of time and intellect in the first place, no matter what is is applied to. Note that genuine libertarians are religious in at least the sense that Buddhists are: a libertarian is genuine if and only if he accepts the non-aggression principle as absolute. No absolute principle can be proven on purely rational grounds, because the statement that non-aggression is "right" or "just" is subjective. The statement that people "must" not aggress is false: they can and do. Nor is non-aggression maximally efficient: the successful aggressor benefits enormously. It's arguably the most "fair," but that merely begs the question: you still haven't proven that anyone should give a damn about fairness. In short, you are accepting, without rigorous proof, an absolute concept of "justice," and the doctrine that this justice takes precedence over all other considerations--"Justice though the heavens fall." Whether or not you also believe in God as the personification of justice, you are at least as religious as a Buddhist, since God is optional in Buddhism. Which completes the argument I was expecting you to infer from my post. You are either an aggressor, or a religious man. If an aggressor, your ridicule is meaningless to me because you are evil. If religious, then your ridicule is hypocritical. --Len.
Fred Furash:Just because I quoted someone on a theological matter doesn't mean I agree with their political views.
My response is, superficially, an appeal to the tu quoque fallacy: the individual accusing others of irrationality is himself guilty of irrationality. I explicitly demonstrated it in the case of any liberal, which obviously includes Sagan and Dawkins. But I claimed much more than that: I claimed that all humans adopt one or more premises which are not rationally supported. I could move on to cite Ayn Rand, who was particularly flagrant in this regard, if only to irritate any objectivists reading the thread.
But the point of observing that all humans are motivated partly by rationality, and partly by other principles, is to attack directly the assertion, implicit in the atheists' argument, that any deviation from absolute rationalism is inherently a defect. Given that no human is purely rational, your premise compels you to: kid yourself that you are absolutely rational, as Ayn Rand did; or recognize yourself as defective. The former is, needless to say, irrational. It's as irrational as a short man asserting himself to be tall.
But the latter is, more subtly, a religious conviction! It requires one to adopt an unrealizable ideal as a standard, against which one must confess that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of Pure Logic." Put slightly differently, it represents the irrational premise that humans must conform to a standard to which conformity is not possible. It's as irrational as defining dependence on oxygen to be a defect in humans. Existence exists. A is A. And humans are what they are.
Fred Furash: If a wise and fair God does exist, surely it will judge people not by how much they worshipped it...
Fred Furash: Then again I dislike the very concept of worship as a useless waste of time and intellect in the first place, no matter what is is applied to.
In short, you are accepting, without rigorous proof, an absolute concept of "justice," and the doctrine that this justice takes precedence over all other considerations--"Justice though the heavens fall." Whether or not you also believe in God as the personification of justice, you are at least as religious as a Buddhist, since God is optional in Buddhism.
Which completes the argument I was expecting you to infer from my post. You are either an aggressor, or a religious man. If an aggressor, your ridicule is meaningless to me because you are evil. If religious, then your ridicule is hypocritical.
--Len.
Spideynw: Charles Anthony and wilderness, I think you two are just talking past each other now. There are no "rights", but there should be "rights".
There are no "rights", but there should be "rights".
Natural rights represent a normative prescription of what behavior is moral and what behavior is immoral. No more and no less. The criminal who violates the freedom of an other person is simply immoral.
Where I think some libertarians are confused is when they think a criminal action makes the criminal or "society" worse off than before. That is false. The only intelligent statement that can be made is that the victim of crime is worse off. The change in welfare to everybody else is debatable.
Charles Anthony: Where I think some libertarians are confused is when they think a criminal action makes the criminal or "society" worse off than before. That is false. The only intelligent statement that can be made is that the victim of crime is worse off. The change in welfare to everybody else is debatable.
not sure who's confused by that, but ok. Except I would note you said it's "false", but then state it's "debatable". I'm inclined for the latter. Context would help in providing how the debate would play out. (and I'm not saying we need an intellectual exercise, I'm simply generalizing here).
laminustacitus: By the way, Hashem, would you mind doing me a favor, and typing out a list of at least ten natural laws?
Why?
hashem: laminustacitus: By the way, Hashem, would you mind doing me a favor, and typing out a list of at least ten natural laws? Why?
So I can tear every single "law" apart. Anyways, it should be very easy for you to answer my question, if you do not you admit that natural "laws" either do not exist, or that men have yet to truly understand them; either one is your thesis' death knell.
So, how about you simply answer my question.
Freedom is in this sense a pure transcendental idea, which, in the first place, contains no empirical element; the object of which, in the second place, cannot be given or determined in any experience, because it is a universal law of the very possibility of experience, that everything which happens must have a cause, that consequently the causality of a cause, being itself something that has happened, must also have a cause. In this view of the case, the whole field of experience, how far soever it may extend, contains nothing that is not subject to the laws of nature. But, as we cannot by this means attain to an absolute totality of conditions in reference to the series of causes and effects, reason creates the idea of a spontaneity, which can begin to act of itself, and without any external cause determining it to action, according to the natural law of causality.
laminustacitus:So, how about you simply answer my question.
How about you go find out for yourself.
Start with this one:
to be necessarily means to be something
Juan:Here's just ONE sample for those who like to babble Kantian jargon... Freedom is in this sense a pure transcendental idea, which, in the first place, contains no empirical element; the object of which, in the second place, cannot be given or determined in any experience, because it is a universal law of the very possibility of experience, that everything which happens must have a cause, that consequently the causality of a cause, being itself something that has happened, must also have a cause. In this view of the case, the whole field of experience, how far soever it may extend, contains nothing that is not subject to the laws of nature. But, as we cannot by this means attain to an absolute totality of conditions in reference to the series of causes and effects, reason creates the idea of a spontaneity, which can begin to act of itself, and without any external cause determining it to action, according to the natural law of causality.
Eight, I'll include the action axiom here, to go.
hashem: laminustacitus:So, how about you simply answer my question. How about you find out for yourself. Start with this one: to be necessarily means to be something
How about you find out for yourself.
No, you are not dodging this question Hashem, for you are the one proclaiming how wise he is, so why not you answer the humble supplicant's question?
hashem: Start with this one: to be necessarily means to be something
Please elucidate to me why that statement means anything for I'm just seeing a linguistic puzzle here.
laminustacitus: hashem: laminustacitus:So, how about you simply answer my question. How about you find out for yourself. Start with this one: to be necessarily means to be something No, you are not dodging this question Hashem, for you are the one proclaiming how wise he is, so why not you answer the humble supplicant's question?
I'm not your pet or slave. If you presume to demolish natural law, then start with the first law:
Refute that, and the proud and merciless days of natural law are finished. Besides, if you can "tear apart" a law of nature, then I'll reward you with the second law.
laminustacitus: hashem: Start with this one: to be necessarily means to be something Please elucidate to me why that statement means anything for I'm just seeing a linguistic puzzle here.
Damn right it sounds like a linguistic puzzle to you. Here, I'll give you a hint:
to be necessarily means to be something, that is, some particular thing or entity
.......................................game over?
hashem: I'm not your pet or slave. If you presume to demolish natural law, then start with the first law: to be necessarily means to be something
Its merely an analytic proposition: A means B, it is tautological, and yields no new knowledge then we have started off before.
hashem: Besides, if you can "tear apart" a law of nature, then I'll reward you with the second law.
No, I asked my question politely, I even gave you my motivations; ergo, you either answer the question , or I will simply ignore you. While I would enjoy to debate you, if you don't want to answer questions, but instead desire to play games with me, I have better things to do, and this will be the end of our conversation.
So, either you can either politely answer my question, and continue this debate, or goodbye.
Juan:Hey sonny, explain how a free thinker like you believes catholic dogma...or else shut up ?
Take this as a warning Juan, the LvMI forums are not here for you to hijack threads, and attack religious beliefs of the posts.
laminustacitus: hashem: Besides, if you can "tear apart" a law of nature, then I'll reward you with the second law. No, I asked my question politely, I even gave you my motivations; ergo, you either answer the question , or I will simply ignore you. While I would enjoy to debate you, if you don't want to answer questions, but instead desire to play games with me, I have better things to do, and this will be the end of our conversation. So, either you can either politely answer my question, and continue this debate, or goodbye.
This isn't a debate, laminustcitus. This is you mining for ideas again like you did with me earlier in this thread. Haven't you figured out how to think for yourself yet?
laminustacitus: hashem: I'm not your pet or slave. If you presume to demolish natural law, then start with the first law: to be necessarily means to be something Its merely an analytic proposition: A means B, it is tautological, and yields no new knowledge then we have started off before.
Congratulations buddy, you have talked about the law. It stands. Analyze it all you want, even write essays on it. But disprove it you will never.
In the words of the great Jim Carrey: Take care now, bye bye then.
wilderness:This isn't a debate, laminustcitus. This is you mining for ideas again like you did with me earlier in this thread. Haven't you figured out how to think for yourself yet?
Its all about getting the information you need from someone to show that what they are arguing is a terrible point for often we speak past each other, so asking a question having them elucidate what they speak of is a tactic to make the object of the conversation more evident. Plus, Hashem rejects the traditional use of "natural law" a la Brainpolice's critique, and I'm rather interested in what he means by "natural law" because, at least for me, claiming that both synthetic a priori judgments, and the laws of nature fit into one tidy category as "natural law" sends up a red flag. Ergo, I asked for a list of what he considered natural laws because as the conversation/debate proceeded he never once cited a law of nature as a natural law, but remained in the realm of the synthetic a priori with the action-axiom, and then moved into the realm of the analytic a priori judgments with his most recent natural law. Plus, I greatly respect Kant, so Juan quoting Kant made me even more interested in knowing what exactly were these "natural laws" that were being spoke of because, as I've said before, they never cited any laws of nature as natural laws.
In addition, what you call "mining for ideas", I call the Socratic method. Remember, wilderness, that sometimes we are decieved by our own subjective semblance, and the best way to break its influence is to have the other person explain what they speak of. We don't learn by sitting in a room thinking alone, we learn by interacting with other ideas, asking questions, ect..
hashem: to be necessarily means to be something
To be someone who gets pleasure by violating "natural-laws" so-called means to be someone who gets pleasure by violating "natural laws" so-called. To be someone who judges the correctness of actions by their expediency in increasing his own pleasure means... aw shucks I'm sick of this double talk.
I don't see any proof so far that it's impossible to accrue increased levels of net satisfaction by violating these natural laws.
laminustacitus: wilderness:This isn't a debate, laminustcitus. This is you mining for ideas again like you did with me earlier in this thread. Haven't you figured out how to think for yourself yet? Plus, Hashem rejects the traditional use of "natural law"
Plus, Hashem rejects the traditional use of "natural law"
I actually think hashem is using the traditional use. I admitted in an earlier post that I think I was conflating natural rights with natural law, using them almost interchangeably at times, yet, mentality I recognized a difference. I was being sloppy.
laminustacitus: In addition, what you call "mining for ideas", I call the Socratic method. Remeber, wilderness, that sometimes we are decieved by our own subjective semblance, and the best way to break its influence is to have the other person explain what they speak of.
In addition, what you call "mining for ideas", I call the Socratic method. Remeber, wilderness, that sometimes we are decieved by our own subjective semblance, and the best way to break its influence is to have the other person explain what they speak of.
ok
Majevska has the smartest post on this page.
So do you guys just routinely talk past each other or is this new?
existence is elsewhere