<p>
Did you hear that my brothers? You are now miserable slaves who will die under the whip of other brothers.</p>
<p>So how did you figure out what human rights are?</p>
<p>“Example: 1 + 1 =2.” -> A horrible example.</p>
<p>
Oh, jeez, this grammar is absolutely atrocious. What did you just attempt to say? Probably another [attempt at a] joke.</p>
<p>
Oh, jeez, this grammar is absolutely atrocious. What did you just attempt to say? Probably another [attempt at a] joke.</p>
<p>^My comp just spazzed, sorry for the double post.
Sorry, but this doesn’t refute anything. Try again.</p>
<p>I’ve said some truly obscure things, but if you can’t understand that, you probably failed reading comprehension.</p>
<p>I don’t have to refute your example. You have to show me how your example supports your argument. I could substitute “Your mama is fat” for “Rights aren’t defined by humans” without affecting anything of your argument.</p>
<p>
I think it was CC, not sure.</p>
<p>
It seems very likely that this is true. You, however, are arguing that reality exists outside of human perception in exactly the same way that it exists within human perception.</p>
<p>
Never said that it would.</p>
<p>
No, I am not. This paragraph doesn’t really make sense; I feel like you are just making things up and attributing them to me.</p>
<p>
Oh, so the law of identity DOES depend on human perception now? I am saying that we believe in it because it is pragmatic within the context of the human experience to believe that my TV is a TV and not a pile of leaves.</p>
<p>
Nah, I’m not that adventurous of a person. Still, that was rather rude. My point is that human perception is what we have, so it would not be pragmatic for me to ignore that gravity exists and jump off a building. You however, presume to talk about things and phenomena existing outside of human perception in terms of absolute certainty.</p>
<p>
Explain this. Explain how asking people to explain their beliefs is a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>
What do you mean “distorted”?</p>
<p>
What are you even talking about? </p>
<p>
Don’t get involved in deep philosophical discussions if you don’t know what you’re getting yourself into. Your attempt to masquerade your ignorance with insults is getting a wee bit annoying. You haven’t even attempted to refute much of anything. Try to quote my words, and then refute those words. If not, do not get involved in these kind of discussions.</p>
<p>
Now you’re annoying me. What am I talking about? I’m responding to your statement that I quoted.</p>
<p>You still haven’t given me the reason why you believe in certain rights but not others.</p>
<p>
- What, exactly, is a “proper” metaphysics? Direct realism?
- Even the most oppressed, tormented slave still exists.
- Why do people have to exist in a way proper to their nature as rational beings?
- You are basically saying, “People are rational ,therefore they ought to have societies with rights that are conducive to that rationality” You assume that this follows logically, but it does not. It also remains to be seen what you mean by “rational.” What is the basis for your belief that “all humans are rational.” What does that even mean?</p>
<p>
Ah, I see. Just leave then. If you don’t want to debate like Sithis is, don’t debate. You’re not responding to my arguments. You’re just hurling insults. Quote my arguments and respond to them [like Sithis], if not, there’s no point of you being here. </p>
<p>@Sithis- I’ll respond in a few.</p>
<p>
That is what I was saying.</p>
<p>^Ok, cool? That has nothing to do with my argument. Was it supposed to be a joke though?</p>
<p>^You were being melodramatic. I was pointing that out by responding sarcastically. Was I being serious? No. Were you meant to laugh? No.</p>
<p>Oh, and I apologize if I got annoyed. I thought you were acting dumb and that annoys me.</p>
<p>The reason I numbered my response was because I wrote it up in Microsoft Word and it’s easier to keep track of what quote I was responding to if I numbered it. I’m off to bed after I post this, btw. I’ll respond to everything else tomorrow, err, later today. </p>
<p>
- That’s because reality is what it is. It doesn’t mysteriously change forms and become something else just because I look at it. What I’m arguing is that reality exists outside of our consciousness. It doesn’t exist in some other form “inside” our perception - we perceive it as it is.</p>
<p>
- The implication is there as soon as you make the argument that there might be some kind of reality that we don’t perceive.</p>
<p>
- You keep saying “human perception” and the like, which denotes that there’s some other form of perception out there which changes existence in some unknown way - unless, of course, you’re willing to recant the argument concerning our “subjective perception” of reality.</p>
<p>
- I don’t really think you understand what I’m saying. The law of identity isn’t like God. We don’t “believe in it” because we think it makes things better to believe that it’s true. Our identification of it is a product of perception. The truth of it isn’t. Something is what it is, even if we don’t identify it as such. The reason that we “believe in” the law of identity is because, if we refuse to accept that something is what it is, has a specific nature and properties, etc, then we die. If we treat man as plant, rather than as man, we die. Plants can sit in one spot and absorb nutrients from the soil. I dare you to stop “believing in” the law of identity, and to try being a plant for a few days.</p>
<p>
5.a I wish you’d stop using the term “pragmatic”, first of all. To say that one lives “pragmatically” implies that one only lives for the range of the moment, with no concept whatsoever at the future. Pragmatists are the sort who say it’s ethical to violate someone’s rights if you really, REALLY need to do it in order to survive (such as the example of bending ethical rules by stealing bread).</p>
<p>5.b. Saying that our perception is “what we have” implies that there’s some greater level of perception out there which could do a better job of identifying reality. You argue earlier that I’m misrepresenting you, while later confirming my arguments. That’s impressive.</p>
<p>5.c. I do speak in absolute certainty. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that some super-being decided to tweak my consciousness when I was born so that everything I know of reality is only a distorted shadow of what really exists.</p>
<p>
- Asking for explanation is one thing - regressing infinitely through “how do you know that…” doesn’t help you.
“How do you know that there are rights?”
“But how do you know that reality exists as it exists?”
“But how do you know that you can know anything?”
There’s a logical conclusion to what you’re arguing. You simply refuse to acknowledge it, claiming that I’m putting words in your mouth. I would say that your claim is valid, because I’ve debated this exact issue countless times before, and I know precisely where this chain of thought ends. Any words that I put into your mouth are those which would end up there anyway.</p>
<p>
We perceive reality as we perceive reality. We cannot know that we perceive it as it IS. If we cannot know this, saying that the Law of Identity or “what it codifies” has meaning outside of the human experience is patently wrong.</p>
<p>
No it is not. In any case, money being there or not being there is a human perception. Even the identification of “money” is a human identification. It would be an inconsistency in our perception of reality as developed by experience for money as we have identified it as such to magically appear where it had not been before. The human brain does not cope well with inconsistencies.</p>
<p>
I don’t see how saying “Human perception of reality is not necessarily an accurate perception of reality external to human experience” denotes that there are any other perceptions at all. Perhaps there is “reality external to the human experience of it” and “the human experience of reality” and nothing else. I do not see how you can competently prove that they are one and the same.</p>
<p>
Yes, it most certainly is. Ok, “believe” was a bad word to use without stating my intent. By “believe” in it, I am saying that we act on it, we make decisions based upon it.</p>
<p>
What does this statement even mean? I am positing that the “truth” of the law of identity is contingent upon human experience. We think that it is “true” because our experiences confirm its “truth”. Does “truth” have any meaning outside of human experience? Why? </p>
<p>
Not necessarily.</p>
<p>
You are making the “truth” of the law of identity contingent upon some arbitrarily decided upon “necessity of man’s survival.” You are not defending the idea that the Law of Identity is external to human affairs at all. In fact, you are confirming my view that we “believe” in it because it is pragmatic (practical) to do so.</p>
<p>
By pragmatic, I mean “practical.” Still, I see no reason why I should adjust my word choice because it carries some negative connotation for you.</p>
<p>
No, it doesn’t. I don’t see how I am confirming your arguments at all. You seem to be assuming that a single imperfect perception entails that there is a perfect perception. This is not necessarily the case. Perhaps there is just reality and imperfect perceptions of it.</p>
<p>
I never like to speak in absolute certainty (in as much as I can avoid it). I have no reason to hold that belief either. However, your consciousness does not directly interact with reality in any case. It interprets information from your sensory organs in some way. How do you know that your sensory organs are perfectly adapted to experience “true external reality?” From the evolutionary standpoint, all you can say is that humans have evolved over time to have some perception that is conducive to our Fitness. I think that your philosophical view of perception can best be described as direct/na</p>
<p>And here is the additional post I promised:</p>
<p>You seem to assume that my rejection of your direct realism comes from some mystical/supernatural perception of the universe. On the contrary, it comes from reasoned philosophical thought, the physics/biology of sense organs, and my understanding of quantum physics. The objections to direct realism in the wiki article I linked you to earlier summarize my views and why I hold them quite aptly:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quantum physics and na</p>
<p>If I’m hungry, what’s morally acceptable takes a side step. Priority number one for an individual is maintaining their own life. Everything else, including living in a morally acceptable manor is secondary.</p>
<p>I’m not going to read this thread, but I can tell you that different philosophers (like real philosophers, not some random dude calling himself a philosopher) have different opinions on whether this is moral, immoral, or if doesn’t regard morality at all.</p>
<p>
All human beings have the right to life. The right to life entails the right to all things needed for the continuation of life: the rights to food, water, shelter, safety, and health. I believe this: </p>
<p>“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”</p>
<p>Therefore, I hold that not only do the people have the right to life and the rights that that entails, but that it is the duty of government (a democratic one at that) to provide for these rights, for all of its citizens. When all of its citizens are provided for, it is the duty of that collection of people (in this case, the United States) to see that excess resources (not being used to provide for themselves or for vital infrastructure) be distributed to those outside the US, who, in their humanity, are their equals, but living and dying in inferior conditions. Furthermore, given that it is the duty of the government to provide for these things, I hold that The Declaration of Independence holds true in saying that when a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and found in its place a government to live up to its duties.</p>
<p>
What is is not what always has been, and businessmen are not required to produce food, water, and shelter. Those are base human needs, so they will be produced as long as humans are capable of this. Organized by a democratic government, this will entail much more equal distribution than when the right to life is treated as the paid privileged to life by businessmen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>op·pres·sion
/əˈprɛʃən/ [uh-presh-uhn]
–noun
- the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. </p>
<p>A government is not the only thing that can oppress. When the rich hold so much of the world’s resources that it is impossible for all who are poor to have enough to live, then the rich are, through their actions, oppressing the poor. A “free market” does not mean all are free, it means that the rich are free to oppress the poor. And we don’t have a free market. A free market entails being able to buy and sell anything, and an embodiment of this was slavery, when men bought and sold men in the “free market”. That, my friend, is what happens when we hold the free market above human rights.</p>
<p>Our government is a Democracy. Demos Kratos! “Power to the People”. That is democracy. Our economy, however, is not democratic. It is an oligarchy, where the power is held by the few, the rich, the elite, who own the businesses and corporations and stocks. When people say to take power away from government, they seek to take power from the people. When power is taken from the people, it is filled by the oligarchy of the “private sector”. I prefer a system where all are equal. When the poor man has one vote, and the rich man has one vote. This can be tainted by corruption, and that needs to be worked on, but the private sector IS the corruption that taints the government.</p>
<p>
And you, biovball, have to quantify everything. It has to all be put in a little box with a name on it so you can throw eggs at it and call it names. Haha, but on point, a socialist, through and through. And proud.</p>
<p>This thead has evolved into a corporate discussion not worthy of my reading lol. I will never steal but I do not mind being stolen from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The USA is not a “true” Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.</p>