Atheist!

[xssve]

Since no one challenged my assertion that most people developed their individual Philosophies of life based on philosophical truth but rather based on their emotions, feelings, perversions of the flesh (lust), and all types of greed, I assume that you agree with me. That is another point I have won in this debate.

You base this assumption on the assumption that anybody is still listening to you, if the premise is faulty, the conclusion is usually incorrect.

Still, it is a cogent point, albeit you have not demonstrated that your philosophy is based on anything but emotions, feelings, perversions of the flesh (lust), and all types of greed, etc., to which we can add deception and probably a couple of others.

Since people have philosophies base on elements of the heart(feelings), these philosophies not being based on truth or fact, are not intellectual in nature whatsoever. The philosophies of men, although they may be true, are usually not thought out.

Again, you have not established how your philosophy differs substantially form this formulation, I've been keeping track.

Clocking devices are philosophies invented to obscure the real man and provide an excuse for deviant behavior. That is the point I wish to establish today. Among other things, it will be pointed out that the true challenge of the intellectual man is to overcome clocking devices that he himself has invented that keep him from knowing the truth.

One very obvious clocking device is the philosophy that there is no moral standard of behavior other than man's determination of what is good. My assertion is that this is the "big excuse" that allows men and women to invent morals that allow them to do any sexual deviant act imaginable. After all, they say, there is no one or thing to answer to other than one's self, That is a very narcissistic point of view but that is the view of most liberals. They decide when it is moral to abort children; they decide who should be locked away in insane asylums; they decide who should be allowed to speak on Lit. Forum; it is all about them and they invent the philosophy that allows all this to happen.

Do you mean "cloaking devices"? Since "good" is a human value assignment, what other standard is there for it other than man's determination of what is good?

Deviate from what?

You seem to be worried about insane asylums - I think Reagan booted all them people out on the street way back when - you might better think about what kind of shopping cart you prefer.

 

[wmrs2]

You base this assumption on the assumption that anybody is still listening to you, if the premise is faulty, the conclusion is usually incorrect. (You are listening.)

Still, it is a cogent point, albeit you have not demonstrated that your philosophy is based on anything but emotions, feelings, perversions of the flesh (lust), and all types of greed, etc., to which we can add deception and probably a couple of others. (But, I have demonstrated the true nature of your philosophy and making me a bad person is another cloaking device. Part of your delusion is that you can not see this.)

Again, you have not established how your philosophy differs substantially form this formulation, I've been keeping track. (My goal was to establish that your philosophy of life was according to this formulation. I achieved this goal.)

Do you mean "cloaking devices"? Since "good" is a human value assignment, what other standard is there for it other than man's determination of what is good? (That is an excellent question and the answer is self-evident, which you avoid at all cost.)

Deviate from what? (Deviant from the norm, of course, which you consider to be the measure of morality.)

You seem to be worried about insane asylums - I think Reagan booted all them people out on the street way back when - you might better think about what kind of shopping cart you prefer. (I am worried about your definition of insane.)

Your retort is nothing. Based on this fact, I will now demonstrate how your liberal philosophy is akin to the development of mental illness. If your retort is no better than the above, guess who will need space in the community lock-up?

 

[wmrs2]

Bad assumption. Most of us aren't reading your ramblings at all.

(Most of you are!)

 

[xssve]

Your retort is nothing. Based on this fact, I will now demonstrate how your liberal philosophy is akin to the development of mental illness. If your retort is no better than the above, guess who will need space in the community lock-up?

You merely continue to make unsubstantiated claims.

What is "the norm"? Describe it and from whence it derives.

 

[sr71plt]

(Most of you are!)

I don't think so. As for myself, I just skim for the entertainment value.

There's a long list of posters here I'll skim or less if/when they post more than a paragraph. I'm not reading here for deep philosophical natterings and convoluted arguments--only for an entertaining break from edting/writing work.

For the same reason I don't respond to writing exercises or deep discussions on writing here (even though I'm happy to see they are happening). That would be a busman's holiday; why come here for what I'm taking a break from by coming here?

 

[xssve]

There is no such thing as good and evil in nature, like god, these are abstract constructs, empirically speaking.

What we have instead is individual fitness, which is what Rand is trying to describe, and we also have "fitness vehicles", i.e., group fitness, groups as "vehicles" for individual fitness - the family group for instance increases the individual fitness of it's members, the parents have to co-operate in order to maximize their reproductive potential, which includes raising their children to reproductive age in such a way as to maximize their reproductive potential.

Most of your "good" and "evil" involve conflicts between individual and group fitness, and individual or inter/intragroup competition, which often results in actions that are categorized as either "good" or "evil".

Typically, "good" and "evil" are assigned by the group consensus, according to the group vehicle's values.

One area of Ethics is the discipline of sorting through widely varying group value systems in order to find those values that remain consistent, and describe systems to sustain and maximize them. Capitalism is one such system, and Adam Smith was a moral philosopher, not an economist, per se. The US constitution attempts to establish a system based on competing self interest - a stable value - competition itself (checks and balances) acting as the systemic stabilizer in what is a dynamic system.

Fertility is naturally, a very common and stable group value, for example, found in almost every culture in some form.

Current fertility values include Protestant backlash values against dualist (Manichean) elements in Catholic theology, the substitution of wealth for fertility (wealth is a fertility symbol, representing resources), and more general "family values", shared in mainstream culture, regardless of religious affiliation.

"Freedom", i.e., individual prerogative, is another value that crops up regularly, although it's also highly susceptible to group influence. Acentric behavior is maximized by personal freedom, and the group usually benefits over time from aggregate innovation, even if it may oppress the freedoms of groups that appear to challenge current centripetal group values, or "status quo", which represents a group vehicle with vested interests.

These values remain relatively stable, even if they are expressed differently at different times and places.

 

[amicus]

"

...There is no such thing as good and evil in nature, like god, these are abstract constructs, empirically speaking..."

"Hail Mary, full of grace..."

Our resident agnostic/empiricist, chants the mantra, not unlike the Catholics, to establish a rhetoric, every bit as absolute as that denied internally.

Then, lo and behold, our Confessor sets forth that there actually is good and evil, but only in context of the group and of course it varies from group to group and time to time.

A tangled Charlotte's Web of inconsistency, incongruency, and outright silliness, in a forlorn attempt to utilize an ethical system in which there is no basic a priori, self evident foundation, only one that shifts and changes with the latest parasite in power.

Were it not for the effects of such a vacuous philosophy, that of driving its' adherents insane; that of leaving followers totally confused as to when to initiate one set of rules over another, one could care less about such insignificance as it adds nothing to the body of knowledge of man.

Primitive man exhibited the need of such absolute axioms concerning his limited universe and when nature's calamities struck, as they often do with flood and fire and earthquakes and volcano's, he needed and postulated a mythical God to given reason to chaos.

Modern man seeks absolute knowledge of the wiles of nature, sometimes to excess as with the hysterical scream in the dark concerning anthropogenic global climate change. It evens transmutates to faith and belief as the actual science is beyond the lay person.

Such a deal...

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Ami,

Charlotte would never have allowed her web to be tangled.

Use another metaphor, please.

Og

And PS: Please eschew the use of "self-evident". It is meaningless in logic even if it is frequently used in politics and rhetoric.

 

[amicus]

Actually, Ogg, Charlotte's or any other metaphorical web, by nature, becomes tangled when, by intent, a fly is captured.

And my cake headed friend, you be the 'fly' here:

"...Of, relating to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident:..."

Thus, both axiom and self-evident, are contained in formal philosophy.

Missed that page did you?

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Actually, Ogg, Charlotte's or any other metaphorical web, by nature, becomes tangled when, by intent, a fly is captured.

And my cake headed friend, you be the 'fly' here:

Thus, both axiom and self-evident, are contained in formal philosophy.

Missed that page did you?

Amicus

You still have a problem. An axiom has to be "generally accepted". Anything you say is not, nor is it "self-evident".

Og

 

[amicus]

You just don't get it, do you, Ogg?

Axioms, self-evident truths, exist regardless of perception; as with reality, it exists independent of your, 'general approval', reality does not give a rat's ass if your neither perceive or acknowledge truth.

Even ole Aristotle figured that out, "A is A", a thing is what it is...absolute reality is defined by axioms...go back to Philosophy 101, Ogg or have one of you many wives read it to you if you can't read....(ask them to explain it also)

amicus

 

[xssve]

I think we all know who doesn't "get it" ami.

The word "axiom" comes from the Greek word ἀξίωμα (axioma), a verbal noun from the verb ἀξιόειν (axioein), meaning "to deem worthy", but also "to require", which in turn comes from ἄξιος (axios), meaning "being in balance", and hence "having (the same) value (as)", "worthy", "proper". Among the ancient Greek philosophers an axiom was a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof.

Axioms, "self evident" concepts, tend to be very simple:

1. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
2. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.
3. If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
4. Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.
5. The whole is greater than the part.

Wikipedia: Axiom

But this is mathematics - the fields of biology, behavioral science, etc., are constantly changing, nothing is axiomatic, beyond maybe, "life is organic" and even that get's questioned occasionally.

You Two trying to keep up with some second hand Sixties neo-Aristotelianism is just painful to watch, seriously, I don't know if can even do it anymore - you might as well go try to read Chicken entrails, at least that way you'd get to torture small animals.

 

[amicus]

It is fairly simple to determine when you feel your fundamentals are being challenged in a discussion; you revert obscentity and ridicule and I am certain anyone following our conversations can easily see.

At least, I have nudged you from 'no absolutes', to now a few, and no axiomatic or self evident observations, to a few; I consider that progress, although belated.

The problem lies with your professed philosophy and that you appear to have swallowed it whole.

As you described it, and I paraphrase, 'only the senses provide information to the mind...' as I pointed out elsewhere, you discount the cognitive function of the mind to establish concrete relationships between sense acquired data, concepts and the next stage, abstractions, as also concrete, tied by logic and reason to reality and thus, absolute and to those with even half a mind, self evident.

The few who follow these conversations, wonder why one bothers, so I will make an attempt to simplify so that othes may see the cause of your mental instability and hopefully shy away.

Every human life is filled with choices, many choices, every moment of not only ones' waking hours, but in dreams as the mind sorts through the events of the day and organizes them into categories.

Your stated lack of an absolute moral foundation, a vacillation of situational ethical considerations, leads, by definition, so insanity; a dysfunctioning mind. I relate this to clinical depression and inability to function and an example.

Even more simply put, my fuzzy minded friend, if one does not 'know', right from wrong, good from evil, the mind, in its' structure, refuses to conceptualize or abstract the conscious input you give it and it shuts down.

Those are my words, my thoughts, but for those who wish to observe the skeletal construction of this philosophy, I suggest to run out and buy some of the non fiction texts of Ayn Rand concerning epistemology and the human mind.

Should you wish to understand the many moral conflicts, showing like an open wound on society today: abortion, homosexuality, death penalty, violence, conflict, war, and a thousand more, then use your mind to consider these issues rather than adopt a faith that soothes you.

Xssve's faith is in tatters and those who have adopted it, truly cannot judge between good and bad, right and wrong and can only hope for a strong source of leadership to guide them.

A sad state of affairs, Olly, doncha think?

Amicus

 

[xssve]

The shit a grown man will believe, that's a sad state of affairs, turning Aristotle into an "ism", that's a sad state of affairs.

Oh, and your utilitarianism? That does correlate with brain damage, probably atrophy in your right superior temporal gyrus.

 

[amicus]

The shit a grown man will believe, that's a sad state of affairs, turning Aristotle into an "ism", that's a sad state of affairs.

Oh, and your utilitarianism? That does correlate with brain damage, probably atrophy in your right superior temporal gyrus.

~~~

My Utilitarianism? Hardly. It is the father of Pragmatism and the grandfather of Empiricism, but then you know that.

Using obscenity again, eh? Chuckles, means you are up againt the wall, lashing out in defense. Animal instinct perhaps?



amicus...

 

[xssve]

Chuckle this you lying little fuck weasel.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Chuckle this you lying little fuck weasel.

Dude!

 

[xssve]

Scumbag is gonna be a degenerate liar, I get to call him a shit sucking degenerate liar, that's how it works, no free rides.

 

[radepor]

I've only skipped through some of these responses and things have gotten ugly since the last time I visited this thread.

I look at the sky and it's robins-egg blue; you may look at the same instant and see a surf-green sky; another may observe a royal blue. We're all looking at exactly the same thing.

Do we have to kill each other over the variation between what you see and think versus what another sees and thinks?

We're human; we're different; we're supposed to be different.

 

[Guest]

Read the entire thread.

There has been a lot of ugly.

Chiming in at this late date with a "why don't we all get along?" comment is quite patronizing.

 

[Guest]

Chuckle this you lying little fuck weasel.

Dude!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Because 90% of Americans believe in a higher power.

I read somewhere that it was only 75% and I thought that was a lot? Sheesh, it's worse than I thought, then.

It's scary to think that one of the most powerful nations in the world is full of people who believe that a myth is actual truth.


*takes a seat and awaits the screaming*

 

[Handley_Page]

Excuse me guys & gals, but can we try and stick to a reasonable discussion ?.
Those of us for whom 'concepts' and 'absolutes' are not in general conversation or reading may have a little difficulty with some of the quotes.

Abstruse words don't help !

If there are two points of view, let us hear them, in turn and with politeness. Then the rest of us might learn something !

For example: "xssve Chuckle this you lying little fuck weasel. "
gets us nowhere at all.

Right; the Bell goes Clang, both sides come out and break when I tell ya!

[ sorry. I'll get me coat ]

 

[Stella_Omega]

Are you kidding? xssve so won that round by unanimous judges decision.

 

[DeeZire]

Excuse me guys & gals, but can we try and stick to a reasonable discussion ?

I'd suggest you do a search of Wormie's (wmrs2) posts and then get back to us. (Click on Wormie's name in a thread and find the "find more posts" thing in the menu.) Most of us have her/him/it on ignore, after trying fruitlessly to conduct reasonable discussions with said entity. You might even start with the Crucifixion thread, which was quite entertaining, in a sick and twisted way.