 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 1:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | Daniel, Brandon, Dwayne, Tom, Jeff, really anyone who wants to chime in on this who hasn't engaged in the political discussions before...
Trying to maybe take this discussion down a different avenue...keep it simple and don't start way down stream from the mountain sources of each person's philosophical river...
So, some basic questions for each of you, with some definitions of key words thrown in so we don't get bogged down in semantical, definitional type debates...ala the "ownership/stewardship" debate...
BASIC QUESTION NUMBER ONE: What rights and duties does an individual have with regard to a)other individuals b) society c) government?
DEFINING KEY WORDS: rights/duties....I bring this up because somewhere in some thread Tom said something about the word "rights", I don't remember exactly what he said, but something to the effect that he didn't think we had ANY rights. So, to clarify what I mean...first, I'm not talking about any rights or duties we have with regards to God. That's a whole different discussion, I'm only talking about what rights/duties we have with regard to other humans and human institutions. And when I say "rights" and "duties" I am only meaning something like this: what can I reasonably expect of other people and what can they reasonably expect of me (and also extrapolating that into the realm of human collectives, like society, and collective societal institutions, like government) IMPORTANT: we are talking about rights and duties that can be reasonably expected PRIOR to any contractuality. IMPORTANT: as much as other concepts may add to the richness of these basics, I am wanting to laser beam focus in on rights and duties THAT CAN BE OBSERVED AND RECOGNIZED. For example, to give an answer of "To love one another." O.K. your not gonna find me disagreeing with your answer...except it misses the point of my question...while love can often, and probably most of the time can be OBSERVED AND RECOGNIZED...sometimes it can't. I can really be loving you and you not know it, or even think that I am doing it's opposite. I am looking for answers way more basic than that. For example, here is my answer to my own question: 1) Innocent (meaning that this person has not themselves transgressed some other individual's basic rights) innocent human beings should reasonably expect that no other individual will kill them. A prohibition on murder. 2) Innocent individual human beings should reasonably expect that no other individual will impair their liberty. A prohibition on confinement. 3) Innocent individual human beings should reasonably expect that no other individual will steal from them. A prohibition on theft. As you may recognize, these touch upon life, liberty, and property...and most every other offense is just gonna be some sub-category of one of these categories. And pretty much these rights/duties will (for me) translate straight over into human collectives...i.e. I think collectives rights and duties are just the rights and duties of individuals, because it's individuals that make those collectives.
BASIC QUESTION NUMBER TWO: What is the basis for your answer of question NUMBER ONE? IMPORTANT: whatever, your answer is...it can only have ever come into reality and functionality either by contract (via argumentation) or by force. As control of your own life, liberty and property is the only means by which a person can even engage in the argumentation of contract; to deny life, liberty, and property simply means that your answer is "force"
Or maybe I'm ALL WRONG! Maybe I'm asking the wrong starting question. If you don't like these questions and won't answer them...what basic questions would you ask instead? Again, start at mountain sources, not miles and miles down a philosophical river that I am not already afloat on.
Some issues that may arise, or questions people will have that may or may not go spoken:
1) What about Jesus in all this? If we're all avowed Christians in this discussion does that not become a central defining issue?
Being devil's advocate...let's just assume that I am not a Christian. Jesus talk is meaningless to me. If you're answer can only be given to other Christians...my follow up question to you is...what does that mean for people who are not followers of Jesus? Are you, like so many other political groups, just gonna press your political muscle to force me to doing things the way you want me to do them?
2) I already know that I have quite a different view of collectives than maybe anyone else here, but especially with Daniel and Brandon...and I have been thinking about that a lot...and have had some ideas and questions that maybe you could answer for me:
I do not deny that there is such a thing as "society", and I certainly do not deny that there is such a thing as "government"...it's only April 24th, I know all too well that there is such a thing as government as I recently had to send them some of my property. What I deny is that society or government is anything else than a multiplicity of individuals.
Even Tom joined this particular issue when he pointed out that Greg believes in "collective wholes" (to bring Trinity and Process into the mix) And yes, in the biological realm (the example Greg gives and I've seen others give), I totally agree with the concept, I just don't think it is portable to social wholes, and here is why:
In the biological realm, we have individual cells...that are alive all on their own (well, not totally, extract one cell and separate it from the whole, and it WILL die in short order unless you freeze it or the like) anyways...one cell, alive on it's own...is part of some particular organ...i.e. it is a heart cell, a brain cell, a muscle cell, a liver cell, etc. (unless it is a stem cell...i.e. before it "chooses a major"...but as far as I know, stem cells don't have a function other than staying alive and waiting to be "called into the game" as a particular type of cell. So...cell...organ...whole. The whole being whatever organism it makes up...a human, an ape, an octopus, whatever... Cell...organ...whole. The whole definitely lives a phenomenologically distinct life than the cells...i.e. it is not just a bunch of cells. It has a different consciousness, a different will, etc.
So, my question is...do you guys REALLY believe that a social collective like "society" has a phenomenologically distinct life different than the lives of individual human beings? Does "society" have consciousness? Does "society" have a will? Is there upwards and downwards causation that exists between individual human beings and society like there is between individual cells and a human organism? i.e. what my cells do affects me and what I do affects my cells.
Another thought...I as an individual can be part of MANY social collectives. I can be part of American society and also be part of Albanian society, as I was when I lived there. I can be part of The Red Cross and part of a local chess club. I can be part of a local church and part of a local political group. I can be in many, many collectives all at the same time. I can even be in two different collectives that have opposing policies with regard to any given issue.
Well, gotta go for now...jump in anywhere. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Asher,
A couple of questions Bro. You actually ask this in your (1).
I’m caught between answers that end up comparing what I think the Kingdom (in its fullest expression via finally redeemed humanity) will look like—on the one hand—and what manner of compromise (personal, societal, governmental) I’m willing to concede on those same levels given the systemic fallenness that inevitably qualifies these relationships—on the other hand.
So my first question is this. When you ask what rights and duties individuals have toward others and toward government, do you want my answer to essentially express the former (what the Kingdom in a fully redeemed context might look like on a personal, societal and governmental levels) or the latter (what Kingdom goals I think are reasonably achievable WITHIN the systemic fallenness of our world at present)? I’m guessing the former—what is reasonably achievable now given the inevitably fallen nature of human relations and societies at present. So we’re just talking about what forms of society/government/economics BEST approximate what we think those forms shall be when evil no longer qualifies ‘what’s possible’ for human beings.
I make the distinction because I don’t believe that ultimately (in the fulfilled Kingdom) human relations are qualifiable in terms of ‘rights’ and ‘duties’. But I don’t mind using those terms to qualify human relations in the face of evils that presently characterize those relations. It’s a concession to (and a kind of ‘complicity in’) the evils with which we have to deal. This will eventually bring us around to ecclesiology. What sort of human being (personal, relational, governmental) ought we to instantiate within the Body of Christ so as to speak prophetically to the fallen context in which we find ourselves by living NOW the KIND of life in community we all shall someday be? But that’ll come later. But my second question, then, is this. Do you want to know how Christian faith might/ought to inform human relations outside the Church so as to best approximate what those relationships shall by God’s designed ultimately look like, OR do you want to know what our best thoughts are irrespective of our faith (viz., do you want answers that are formulated based on reasoning and information that are accessible and palatable to secular minds)? To anticipate the discussion here, I think it’s a good thing to help people live as peaceably and responsibly as they can given whatever means and argumentation we need to use. It doesn’t seem reasonable for me to insist that unless a group of people accept the Christian faith there’s absolutely nothing we can say using categories and arguments that DO hold weight with them and which will help them improve their lives. So I’m all for us doing all we can, given the demands set by our context, to achieve the highest good. But I never want individual followers of Christ to perceive themselves as anything less than Kingdom folk who are called to live prophetically and ‘Christianly’ (i.e., articulating their faith in the Christian story).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 4/24/2011 10:14:07 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | IMO, duty and rights are correlative. My rights are defined IN TERMS of my duties. If I had no rights, I would have no duties. If I had no duties, I would have no rights.
E.g., my parental rights are defined in TERMS of my parental duties. If I had not parental duties, what would it even mean to say I have parental rights? Do animals have parental rights? I don't see how since they don't seem to have duties.
So, with respect to what you're driving at--To my mind, all rights/duties are grounded in the belief that reality is teleological and that human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends (i.e., God's will for us). The basic duty of humans to other humans is to love others as one loves their own self. And this rule is grounded in the undeniable fact that there is literally no other conceivable rational (i.e., inductive/analogical) criteria by which to adjudicate how we are to treat others. And humans can not function adaptively in this world without reasoning analogically.
And this gets down to the whole argument of Plantiga, Lewis, Porter, etal that even our belief in our ability to apprehend is ultimately grounded in the belief that there is a benevolent designer that designed us to apprehend inductively. If that were not the case, we couldn't know there was an external world at all. We could be a NEO in a MATRIX. Or the external world could exist but have popped into existence 100 years ago with all the apparent memories of the humans that popped into existence at that time. And so on. There is literally an infinite number of such non-inductive LOGICAL possibilities.
Without the criteria of parsimony/breadth of explanation, humans can't get ANYWHERE meaningful epistemologically. But we can't even CONSISTENTLY believe that criteria has any validity unless we also believe we are designed by a competent, benevolent designer. For all it means to say that something is valid is to say it satisfies some normative criteria. But a normative criteria implies teleology. There's no way around it. To reject the belief in a benevolent, competent designer of our epistemological functionality is to either believe nothing or to ONLY believe by absolutely blind faith.
But the reason, Asher, that I agree with your political perspective is that it seems to me that not only was there no government at all before the Flood, but that even once it was authorized for humans, its role was clearly limited. Its role is to apply justice for the purpose of a deterrent. That is not only implied by the wording and context in Genesis, but also in Romans.
As such, the State is not an agent of mercy. To act as such is to usurp the God-given limits of its delegation. And that is why it fails so miserably at that role. For any human that would resort to force against another to wield power that God never delegated to them is unethical. And unethical people just DO fail miserably at mercy and compassion. When its done politically, there are always "vote-buying" motivations that get calculated into the utilitarian calculus involved, thereby destroying the very JUSTICE they are supposed to concern themselves with.
Furthermore, it's precisely because such folks are willing to usurp that they fail so miserably at their ACTUAL delegated role. People who usurp are unethical. Unethical people aren't good at justice OR mercy.
Jesus made it clear how accountability is to work for the unmerciful. He said those who don't show mercy will not receive it. He didn't complain a bit about the fact that the Torah didn't sanction penalties for the rich not being merciful. Because he knew the State is not authorized to use force over THOSE issues. Those issues will be handled at the judgment seat of Christ/God. And we are to accept that and love one another regardless.
If we could get an ethical government (as the Messiah is prophesied to implement), they would do justice. And by doing so, they would do the world a much greater service than what they now do with all their putative compassion.
IOW, Asher, I don't believe that the State is an institution that can be justified in terms of reason apart from revelation. I think both reason and scripture indicate that the particular kind of force that the State can legitimately use MUST be delegated by God. Because that force is actually said to be (in Romans) GOD's vengeance (even though its desired side-effect is deterrence). And vengeance IS GOD'S. He alone can delegate it to man. Man can not assume that role without divine delegation.
This is where I would disagree with a lot of the LewRockwell columnists. They would disagree with me on that point. They think the existence of the State can be justified in terms of natural law alone. I DO NOT agree with that. But given my view of the divinely-delegated role of the State, I agree with them on most everything else, even if not always for the same reason.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/24/2011 3:16:46 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom first...
I want to separate the two forms you mentioned, because all in all Tom, I THINK we are in MUCH agreement...but I never seem to feel the pay-off because there are layers between that get in the way...at least that's what I think is going on...I'm gonna try to peel the layers back and away...and see if you protest...
Tom's two forms:
-----------------------------------
The Kingdom
fullest expression (of the Kingdom) via finally redeemed humanity
what the Kingdom in a fully redeemed context might look like on a personal, societal and governmental levels
when evil no longer qualifies ‘what’s possible’ for human beings.
I make the distinction because I don’t believe that ultimately (in the fulfilled Kingdom) human relations are qualifiable in terms of ‘rights’ and ‘duties’.
I never want individual followers of Christ to perceive themselves as anything less than Kingdom folk who are called to live prophetically and ‘Christianly’ (i.e., articulating their faith in the Christian story).
-------------------------------------
"this present evil world"
what manner of compromise (personal, societal, governmental) I’m willing to concede on those same levels given the systemic fallenness that inevitably qualifies these relationships
what Kingdom goals I think are reasonably achievable WITHIN the systemic fallenness of our world at present
what is reasonably achievable now given the inevitably fallen nature of human relations and societies at present.
So we’re just talking about what forms of society/government/economics BEST approximate what we think those forms shall be when evil no longer qualifies ‘what’s possible’ for human beings.
‘rights’ and ‘duties’. But I don’t mind using those terms to qualify human relations in the face of evils that presently characterize those relations.
What sort of human being (personal, relational, governmental) ought we to instantiate within the Body of Christ so as to speak prophetically to the fallen context in which we find ourselves by living NOW the KIND of life in community we all shall someday be?
-----------------------
First, I feel like your answer is too far down the philosophical river...and that's where tangles occur. The intention of this thread is to avoid the tangles (not to deny in any way that there are important issues at the tangle point...not even to deny that those issues are more weightier than the basic questions I'm asking...just that, if we start at the tangles...well, Daniel's gonna be thinking I'm an oppressive, living off the efforts of others, not true to Christianity, capitalist pig...and well, I'm gonna call Daniel a murderer...and what I mean is that given the philosophical presuppositions already either explicitly or implicitly (and therefore maybe not consciously recognized) accepted that the one follows from the other...and he means something like that about me and my presuppositions)
So, let me use another device to ask my question again:
I am a mature human being, I have taken a blow to the head and have been in a coma...I come out of the coma and I can't remember very much...I am cognitively functional...but I don't remember any personal higher order philosophical beliefs. I am bombarded by many different people each an evangelist for a set of higher order philosophical beliefs. The fact that they are each trying to persuade me tells me some basic philosophical presuppositions. I am alive. I am free to choose my own beliefs. Evidently, I am free to act on those beliefs once taken as my own. Part of what it means for me to be alive is that I have a body (physical matter assembled in a certain way) and that I must maintain that physical body by consuming other physical matter.
Are you saying, Tom, that I have no adequate basis from this state of affairs to think one way or another about whether I can reasonably expect the next person that walks into my hospital room to murder me or not? Apart from taking your "Kingdom" or "present fallen evil" perspective, one or the other; that I can't have a reasonable idea and working thought that "I can trust that the people coming in this room aren't going to kill me." If I can't trust, Tom, that you are not out to kill me...why would I take ANYTHING you have to say seriously? Except that you ARE "saying". In other words, you walk in my room and engage me. You present beliefs. You want me to accept those same beliefs. Now someone else walks in the room. They are also speaking about beliefs they want me to accept, but they are also holding a gun on me while asking/telling (???) me to accept their beliefs. Is this normal for the world? Is this a reasonable expectation? Is this what I can expect when I am encountering other human beings? Can other human beings pull a gun on me? Without doubt! They have free will and physically are capable of pointing a gun at me. They have free will and are capable of having intention to use that gun against me if I don't do or say what they want...or even if I do. Is it a reasonable expectation that that is an O.K. thing to do? It can't be! If everyone acts that way then all we have is mass chaos. And I look around and we do not have mass chaos. I am sitting in a frickin' hospital bed! If it's a reasonable expectation that everyone is gonna use force to retool reality more to their liking...there aren't gonna be any hospitals. There is not gonna be any high level of civilization AT ALL. So, what can I reasonably expect? I'm not asking is it possible for someone to break the reasonable expectations! It goes without saying! If it were not possible for anyone to break reasonable expectations...I doubt I'd even be sitting in the hospital bed thinking about these philosophical, ethical, political issues...because if all I or anyone else can do is metaphysically bound to the actual actions that are in the same set as "reasonable expectations"
it's not even gonna occur to me to think about it.
And that is the state of your "Kingdom" perspective. No evil is possible. So when you ask "So we’re just talking about what forms of society/government/economics BEST approximate what we think those forms shall be when evil no longer qualifies ‘what’s possible’ for human beings?"
then you have totally missed the point of my questions. If I am free to do evil now, and not free to do evil then...
When the point arrives in which neither I nor any other human being is metaphysically capable of doing evil...I literally will not be engaging in political speech of ANY kind. Why would I? I'm just gonna live. I will not think about ANY issue in which evil is entangled...because there is no longer any evil.
(As an aside...Adam and Eve both sinned prior to being fallen, while in a Garden of Eden...Lucifer sinned prior to being fallen, while in Heaven...I don't have ANY examples to extrapolate from when envisioning your "Kingdom" perspective. That doesn't mean I am denying it, not at all. Just that other than shear vocalization that that's what it is (a place where evil is no longer possible) there is not something in the here and now that I peg it with.)
So, again, I am not trying to attack the philosophical concept of "the Kingdom"...but it is too far down the philosophical stream for me to deal with here at the mountain source of the stream...it may be the MOST important concept...but how do I get to it from philosophical basics? If I can't reasonably expect that other people aren't gonna kill me, I'll never get to "the Kingdom".
Is it a reasonable expectation to think that other people aren't gonna kill me? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Or let me restate in this way...
Tom, nearly everything you said requires engagement in argumentation.
I am still prior to that, I am asking about what exists prior to that.
So...
1) We are sticking a pin in the whole idea of force. We MUST come back to it at some point, it has to be dealt with. But we are sticking a pin in it to draw attention away from force and towards argumentation.
2) Argumentation...I want to stick a pin in any actual engagement in argumentation about anything other than argumentation...and ask...what makes argumentation possible? Resist the temptation to pull out the pins for now. I am not asking, how can we best engage in argumentation given that force is a present threatening evil...that's a good question and I'd like to explore it with you all downstream...but that is not the question here posed. You want to answer EVERY question from your Kingdom perspective...because it is that central and important to your life...I get it...but even HAVING a Kingdom perspective came about in YOUR life because you engaged in argumentation about it (you talked to people, you read books, you thought about it) you did not come out of the womb having the Kingdom perspective you now have, you arrived at it via argumentation. What makes argumentation possible? What conditions the ability to argue? Is there nothing that can be said here? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 3:03 PM (GMT -6) | | And if we are able to set forth the conditions of argumentation...and realize that everything else we believe...has come about via argumentation...our most cherished thoughts...spring from our ability to engage in argument...
Once we know the conditions that make argumentation possible...and we are in discussion somewhere downstream from that basic place...is there some emergent property that takes over for argumentation, or rather takes the place of the pre-conditions of argumentation...
Once we have arrived at a more developed philosophy, can we deny the principles that brought us there?
First, can we deny them metaphysically, logically? We can just not act on those principles anymore because we want to believe some belief that the pre-conditions of argumentation makes impossible to believe...and so we just deny that those pre-conditions have any validity. Oh, they still do. But because we say they don't...we act as if they don't. And we ignore any logical arguments that say we can't legitimately believe what we want to believe.
Second, can we, while still totally endorsing the metaphysical, logical pre-conditions of argumentation...say that we have arrived at some other place where something else that is higher takes the place of those pre-conditions, and that we, for our own part (not drawing anyone else into our position) are gonna act from those higher things rather than from the lower conditions of argumentation?
Third, can we, while still totally endorsing the metaphysical, logical pre-conditions of argumentation...say that we have arrived at some other place where something else that is higher takes the place of those pre-conditions...and that not only will we act on the higher things, we expect others to act upon them too?
To be obtuse...we can immediately answer all three questions...Yes. We can also say that 2+2 is 7. But once you say that we are no longer in the realm of argumentation....maybe we enter the realm of you go your way, I go mine...or maybe we enter the realm of force...but we have left the realm of argumentation.Post Edited (Asher) : 4/24/2011 6:41:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
Jeff: "duty and rights are correlative"
Exactly, they are just the flip side of each other. If I have a right, I am acknowledging a duty with regard to other people regarding the constituents of the right I have. If I have a right not to be murdered, I have a duty not to murder.
Jeff: "all rights/duties are grounded in the belief that reality is teleological and that human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends"
Ooh, so dangerous a territory...I am gonna split what you said into two possible meanings, and agree with one meaning and disagree with the other meaning.
1) Reality is teleological and human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends...grounds all rights/duties.
2) our believing that...Reality is teleological and human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends...grounds all rights/duties.
Is saying two different things...so, some clarifying questions for you:
Does a person who doesn't believe that "Reality is teleological and human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends" have any rights/duties?
Does a person who has thought about it and has decided that they disagree with you...do they have any rights/duties?
Does a person who hasn't thought about it...have any rights/duties?
A paraphrase of your own statement (that I love by the way) "If nothing is given, nothing can be expected"...what is given to men in the way of argumentation? What are the conditions of argumentation that make it possible for any man to agree with you that "Reality is teleological and human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends"?
Jeff: "The basic duty of humans to other humans is to love others as one loves their own self."
Again, so dangerous a territory...man this is hard, I totally agree with you...but let me lay out these statements and let's look at the distinction between them:
Jeff can love me...and at the same time, I, nor anyone else observing, COULD not know that Jeff loves me. True or false?
Jeff can murder me...and I, nor anyone else observing, COULD not know that Jeff is murdering me. True or false?
Jeff can steal from me...and I, nor anyone else observing, COULD not know that Jeff is stealing from me. True or false?
Again, if you want to be obtuse, one could say...True...to all three statements. Jeff could secret a poison in a cup of tea, neither I nor anyone else observing would say "Jeff murdered Rob" But look at the distinctions between the two things
Jeff does not want to conceal the fact that he loves me. It may in fact be concealed to me that Jeff loves me, but Jeff never has the intention of wanting his love to be concealed.
Jeff does want to conceal the fact that he has put poison in my tea. If it is not concealed to me, I won't drink the tea. If it is concealed to me, but not concealed to an observer, I will drink the tea, but Jeff is in danger of being called out by the observer as a murderer.
And while love is definitely either present or absent when Jeff either does or does not murder me...the fact that Jeff has or has not murdered me is more basic than love. It's not more basic metaphysically, but it is more basic epistomologically. Maybe that is a distinction about what I am asking everyone that is important to make, that I have not made before right now. O.K. good, progress in making my question understood.
Jeff: "And this gets down to the whole argument of Plantiga, Lewis, Porter, etal that even our belief in our ability to apprehend is ultimately grounded in the belief that there is a benevolent designer that designed us to apprehend inductively."
"there is a benevolent designer that designed us to apprehend inductively"
we can believe that "there is a benevolent designer that designed us to apprehend inductively."
"our ability to apprehend"
we can believe in "our ability to apprehend"
Jeff...does a person's ability to apprehend precede or follow their belief in their "ability to apprehend"?
Again, distinctions between the metaphysical and the epistemological...and maybe this has been a key confusing aspect to our previous discussions.
No one (except God) has complete knowledge. Some people don't believe the statements that you made above. Do those people still apprehend? Or do they not have any epistemological validity until they believe your statements? Yes, they can be wrong, I'm not questioning that...I am constantly saying that everyone here is wrong, or is coming up just a little short epistemologically...that's what argumentation is all about...if we all had the exact same belief set, we would not be engaging in argument. And if I held a belief that in the course of argumentation I come to doubt the validity of, I either abandon it, or put a pin in it for further examination, but minimally, I take some weight off that belief. In short, everyone here thinks everyone else here is either totally wrong or is close but needs tweaking. Yes, at some point in the conversation we are all tempted to say either "we'll never agree" and give up trying...or "they're close enough" and give up trying. And that happens because it gets difficult. What if it wasn't difficult...what if you knew minimally that I WANTED to understand exactly your position. I have a hard time understanding you, but I want to, and you know I want to. You would likely keep engaging me. It's when we doubt whether the other person really WANTS to understand us that we really start giving up. And it is a real possibility that any one of us here doesn't WANT to understand some other one of us here. And because that is a real possibility it becomes easy to address that instead of the real issue. I mean, who wants to waste their time, explaining and looking for different avenues of approach when the other person is only facetiously engaged.
So...sorry to break this in on your post Jeff...yes, I have found myself thinking that some others here don't really want to understand what I am saying...and I'm sure they have felt the same way about me...I'm sorry. What I'm trying to do with this thread is engage at some pre-level where we don't already disagree...and see if we can build from there.
But if we can't find that place, I don't think much is gonna be gained. And then is it just all of us floating in a soup of force? Trying to stay afloat on a noodle of our own choosing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | In my opinion that is a non-answer from Greg.
1) We of course have to recognize that we're speaking analogically when we refer the "mind" or "will" or "consciousness" of a collective whole
2) There is no other way to describe how people groups act.... "something like" a group "mind", "soul," etc.
First, he says something to the effect of limiting the analogy, then he says that that is the only option we have to use when talking about people groups acting.
Well, how about this...
There are some INDIVIDUALS in every SOCIETY who are privileged in some way. Either they are the most attractive, they are the most popular, they are the biggest bully...but for whatever reason...other people focus in on pleasing them. What does the most attractive man/woman think, I don't want to come out as disagreeing with him/her, I want his/her attention, even if it is pityingly small attention, I just want to be noticed by him/her. What does that popular person think? Even if I disagree with them, I don't want to be too active in voicing my disagreement, all it takes is one sentence from them to the effect that I am uncool...and BAM! everyone around us thinks I'm uncool. What does the biggest bully (embodiment of force) want out of me? I'll do that if I can salvage anything like a normal life. I want desperately just to stay off his radar. And then one of those attractive, popular, or bullying people are elected leader by a majority. Yeah, it's more sophisticated. Maybe he isn't a personal bully. Maybe the privileged have geared society to such an extent that their privilege is built right in...the leader doesn't have to actively bully anyone...like a magician's sleight of hand...the force is hidden (unless someone calls attention to it) but we all still know what's really going on. If I don't comply with the leader/leaders there are penalties to pay, so even though I disagree, I go along.
Also, let's say that there is a leader that I agree with, or agree with to a high degree...I will go along with their plans because I DO AGREE with them.
Either scenario...I am acting NOTHING like a cell in an organism.
Straight up? Does anyone here REALLY think society has a consciousness of it's own, a will of it's own?
Or does society act because at a certain point in time a certain leader or set of leaders has the most influence, so people either do what the leader expects of them...or at a minimum (if they disagree with the leader) they just keep their mouth shut so they don't suffer any ill effects.
In the biological realm there is upwards and downwards causation between individual cells and the collective organism...Does anyone here believe that "society" is an analogous example to a biological collective organism...so that "society" has downwards causation upon individuals in that society?Post Edited (Asher) : 4/24/2011 7:16:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | Asher: Jeff...does a person's ability to apprehend precede or follow their belief in their "ability to apprehend"?
Jeff: If a human thinks in terms of categorical and intuitive relations, that human is believing those relations are true simultaneously. How could it be otherwise? That doesn't mean that the person can't, after the fact, question the validity of their thought. But AS they're thinking in terms of the relations that constitute indicative propositions, they're believing. In the same way a person can't lie incessantly and not contradict him/her self, a person can't incessantly disbelieve their own NATURAL thinking. Disbelief and belief can be volitional. But most of it isn't. Nor could it be. It would absolutely wear us out if it were.
Asher: No one (except God) has complete knowledge. Some people don't believe the statements that you made above. Do those people still apprehend?
Jeff: To disbelieve is to use a categorical relation. For if the LNC and its ground, the law of identity, is not valid, disbelief is not distinguishable from belief. And those who say they disbelieve aren't saying anything we could possibly interpret if they don't assume the validity of the LNC and the Law of Identity. So whether we misapprehend some things in certain instances is not the issue. The issue is whether HUMANS know enough to MEANINGFULLY communicate about something that is HUMANLY relevant. If not, all discussion is a waste of time, right?
Asher: Or do they not have any epistemological validity until they believe your statements?
Jeff: They can believe by blind faith. But where's the knowable validity in that? Belief is either blind, intuitive, or grounded. Right? What else is there? The latter two cases are not knowably possible if the mind can not intuitively know it is designed to know SOMETHING ELSE. That doesn't mean that we are always conscious of this corollary. But that fact is correlative to other beliefs that are not BLIND beliefs whether or not we're thinking of it simultaneously. A bit of honest reflection will render it undeniable to a logical mind.
Asher: I mean, who wants to waste their time, explaining and looking for different avenues of approach when the other person is only facetiously engaged.
Jeff: I'm not being facetious. It may appear that way. But I'm trying to get things down to the bottom line to save time. As I see it, if our belief in God is not intuitive, it is blind. For I can't see how to derive it from other intuitions. And if there is no God, there is no duty. And if there is no duty, there are no rights. And if belief is blind, there are no knowable rights or duties. There's just blind faith in them, if there is belief in them at all. And if belief is blind, I couldn't care less what anyone, including myself, believes. For I can't determine, in that case, how to know whether any beliefs have any causal relation to any satisfaction we experience.
Asher: Does a person who doesn't believe that "Reality is teleological and human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends" have any rights/duties?
Jeff: All it means to have a duty, by my definition, is that we are REQUIRED of as we are GIVEN to. So if such a God exists, all people who have been given to, are required of. The fact that a person disbelieves in teleology doesn't mean they can possibly think consistently with that view or that they always disbelieved in it.
Asher: Does a person who has thought about it and has decided that they disagree with you...do they have any rights/duties?
Jeff: Yes, for the same reason as above.
Asher: Does a person who hasn't thought about it...have any rights/duties?
Jeff: Yes, for the same reason as above.
Asher: A paraphrase of your own statement (that I love by the way) "If nothing is given, nothing can be expected"...what is given to men in the way of argumentation?
Jeff: The categorical relations and concept of being that constrain how men can think rationally.
Asher: What are the conditions of argumentation that make it possible for any man to agree with you that "Reality is teleological and human freedom exists to be exercised unto certain ends"?
Jeff: The fact that the only conceivable alternative is that all belief is blind, and humans don't seem to be able to accept that.
Asher: Jeff can love me...and at the same time, I, nor anyone else observing, COULD not know that Jeff loves me. True or false?
Jeff: God would know. But otherwise, True.
Asher: Jeff can murder me...and I, nor anyone else observing, COULD not know that Jeff is murdering me. True or false?
Jeff: God would know. But otherwise, True.
Asher: And while love is definitely either present or absent when Jeff either does or does not murder me...the fact that Jeff has or has not murdered me is more basic than love. It's not more basic metaphysically, but it is more basic epistomologically. Maybe that is a distinction about what I am asking everyone that is important to make, that I have not made before right now. O.K. good, progress in making my question understood.
Jeff: I don't get that. If I've murdered you, I haven't loved you. If I've killed you because God told me to, I haven't murdered you and I loved you. Because God can't command what is not loving. You need to be more clear. I'm not seeing your distinction. What I'm calling love is action unto the highest good of others, not a feeling.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/24/2011 7:34:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: And while love is definitely either present or absent when Jeff either does or does not murder me...the fact that Jeff has or has not murdered me is more basic than love. It's not more basic metaphysically, but it is more basic epistomologically. Maybe that is a distinction about what I am asking everyone that is important to make, that I have not made before right now. O.K. good, progress in making my question understood.
Jeff: I don't get that. If I've murdered you, I haven't loved you. If I've killed you because God told me to, I haven't murdered you and I loved you. Because God can't command what is not loving. You need to more clear. I'm not seeing your distinction.
Wow! let me restate my above statement:
and while love is definitely EITHER...PRESENT...or ABSENT...when Jeff EITHER...DOES (murder me)...or DOES NOT (murder me)
I just combined all the logical options into one sentence. Let's separate them:
Love is either present or absent when Jeff does not murder me.
Love is absent when Jeff murders me.
----------
Just to get it on the record Jeff...
You think it's a real possibility that God could command you to kill me, and since you received the command you can with full love of me in your heart, kill me. And when society locks you away in prison, that's an unjust sentence...because you haven't murdered me?
Wow!
For me, given that God grounds the metaphysical, logical strata that shows us the pre-conditions of argumentation...one of which is to recognize my right to live...if I heard any command that told me to break what is already the built in command (by God) of not killing me...I would wonder whether I was hearing from God. Or if I had gone insane.
If you really believe that, then there is no way to go forward.
In fact, everything you say you believe can be falsified and stood on it's head, at any given moment that you receive a command "from God" to the contrary.
Your stalwartness against irrationality when arguing with others on this board...can simply be neutralized if you receive a command from God that tells you that all that stuff you believed before wasn't true and that now you are suppose to act differently.Post Edited (Asher) : 4/24/2011 7:49:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: In fact, everything you say you believe can be falsified and stood on it's head, at any given moment that you receive a command "from God" to the contrary.
Jeff: I don't see how you're understanding my position about God. State action is by its very nature utilitarian only, if UR isn't true. When you kill a murderer (let's say as a crime of passion as opposed to premeditation) that has a wife and a child, is the State not adversely affecting that wife and child? That capital punishment is utilitarian. But who opposes capital punishment on that ground? If God commands a killing of an "innocent," it would at least be because He knew it to be the utilitarian thing to do. If UR is true, God could even know it to be the best for the "victim."
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/24/2011 8:15:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | This argument always gets weird here...
I have to put a pin in my own belief that God's rationality, love, justice is what grounds reality...and open reality up to being something else...but I'll try it again...
There was a previous thread in which Tom and I were arguing against Dwayne. Dwayne said we should just love God no matter what. If God turned out to be an evil deceiver...and even though we had done everything possible the way He said to do it...He still put us in a tormenting hell forever...and Dwayne argued that we should just keep loving God anyways. Tom and I argued something to the effect of "the concept of love does not even make any sense in that scenario" So if what you mean is that God has metaphysically made it only possible for me to "Love" Him, then I guess that's what I'll do...whatever the hell that means....but that if we are even talking rationally about love, then his scenario makes no sense.
The same thing applies here. If there is no stability, nothing that is firm...if everything is just whatever God says it is at any given moment, so that God can give a standing order of not killing people...but he may have a specific order to kill someone at some later moment...and that's the God you believe in...well, I don't even believe in the same God as you for one thing...for another, I don't see the way forward from there. What now? We just done? I've tried to go as far back the presupposition tree as I could imagine...but even you, Jeff...who I had previously considered the closest to what I think...we have a radical departure. You are talking about using force against me, when I have done nothing wrong, and that might be O.K. and the rational thing to do...because God told you to do it.
Maybe I should just call it quits. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Do you have any reasons to think God would command killing innocents...other than the Bible?
Utilitarianism is a logical failure as an ethical system. You only know whether there was "utility" AFTER THE FACT!
And you may have done the wrong thing, and be able to recognize it AFTER THE FACT. And so make a law based on that knowledge...that ends up being WRONG after the fact in some other instance, that is similar, but different.
An ethical system that can't tell someone what they should and shouldn't do BEFORE THEY DO IT is simply not an ethical system.
So, what you have given me as reasons for killing me and it maybe being the right thing for you to do is:
Utilitarianism....GONG! You are acting from a belief that you hold, and that I do not hold...but you are enforcing your belief on me.
the Bible...GONG! (I'm not gonna get into the complexities of what I actually think about the Bible since I have done that in another thread....but to stand in for me (and my complex belief about the Bible) I put forward a person who doesn't think the Bible is the Word of God, that it's not connected to God directly, only indirectly if even that.) and again you are acting from a belief that you hold, and that person doesn't...and you are enforcing your belief on them.
How is your position any different than a Marxist who would kill me because I stand in the way of the revealed (to him) truth that Marxism is inevitable and he is it's handmaiden? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: There was a previous thread in which Tom and I were arguing against Dwayne. Dwayne said we should just love God no matter what. If God turned out to be an evil deceiver...and even though we had done everything possible the way He said to do it...He still put us in a tormenting hell forever...and Dwayne argued that we should just keep loving God anyways. Tom and I argued something to the effect of "the concept of love does not even make any sense in that scenario" So if what you mean is that God has metaphysically made it only possible for me to "Love" Him, then I guess that's what I'll do...whatever the hell that means....but that if we are even talking rationally about love, then his scenario makes no sense.
Jeff: I agree with you and Tom, as you are describing your position. My view of divine love is that God acts COMPETENTLY to all people's highest possible good. But just as killing someone in self-defense is not wrong, it follows that I can't know that God doesn't know that there is a greater good to killing somebody. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I believe the NT is consistent with God orally commanding me to kill someone. I'm saying that I can't see how we could know God could not be LOVE and still command Israelites to kill infants after their exodous from Egypt. We don't know enough to know better.
Asher: if everything is just whatever God says it is at any given moment, so that God can give a standing order of not killing people...but he may have a specific order to kill someone at some later moment...and that's the God you believe in...well, I don't even believe in the same God as you for one thing...for another, I don't see the way forward from there. What now? We just done?
Jeff: God can't contradict Himself, by my view. That would contradict my contention that our categories MUST be accepted as God's way of causing us to apprehend/know. And per those categories, contradictory statements can't both be true.
But that doesn't mean that God couldn't have commanded Israelites to kill infants and have been loving in doing so. Explain your view if you disagree. You do believe some killing is proper, right?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: Do you have any reasons to think God would command killing innocents...other than the Bible?
Jeff: Sure. Do you think war is always wrong if it risks the death of infants? To my knowledge, the death of infants is considered an acceptable loss by virtually everyone that tries to work out a just war theory. And this is because no one knows how it could be otherwise and still know how to prolong meaningful civilization on earth.
Asher: Utilitarianism is a logical failure as an ethical system.
Jeff: Not exactly. Justice, when applied by humans, is utilitarian in nature. It's when utilitarianism is done without the assumption that the fairest rules are the most utilitarian that utilitarianism is a logical failure. But there is no way to have any HUMAN system of deterrence that isn't somewhat utilitarian in nature. There is no way, e.g., to ensure that a criminal justice system will ONLY convict the guilty. Failure will be inevitable. And in that sense, our systems are UTILITARIAN in nature. They can never guarantee TOTAL justice.
Asher: How is your position any different than a Marxist who would kill me because I stand in the way of the revealed (to him) truth that Marxism is inevitable and he is it's handmaiden?
Jeff: The Marxist is not concerned about my welfare. My view is that what is right is NECESSARILY consistent with and conducive to the highest good of all members of the moral community. Marxists have no such belief.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/24/2011 9:00:12 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 8:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | Here's how you can help me Asher. Articulate your first principles and then tell me how you can derive from them the propriety of State force/deterrence without God EXPLICITLY having to delegate it. That's what I'm not seeing. Because by my view, justice, in the context of punishment/deterrence, is vengeance. And vengeance IS GOD'S. If there is no God, there is no duty to "fairness" or "just recompence." Because if there is no God, there is no duty, PERIOD.
I understand that you are not a pacifist. So I need to understand how you're getting to the propriety of State deterrence from first principles.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/24/2011 8:49:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: "Here's how you can help me Asher. Articulate your first principles and then tell me how you can derive from them the propriety of State force/deterrence without God EXPLICITLY having to delegate it. That's what I'm not seeing. Because by my view, justice, in the context of punishment/deterrence, is vengeance. And vengeance IS GOD'S. If there is no God, there is no duty to "fairness" or "just recompence." Because if there is no God, there is no duty, PERIOD.
I understand that you are not a pacifist. So I need to understand how you're getting to the propriety of State deterrence from first principles."
-------------------------
Again, this is way down the stream. Even though I would eventually like to talk at places further down the stream...that's what I have done in all previous conversations with people of different beliefs. It seemingly gets no where. I want to find some place prior to disagreement, where we agree about something and see if we can build from there.
Answering your questions (like I'm gonna do in a minute) doesn't accomplish this goal, nor advance it. I'll answer, because you asked, but it just means there is a certain kind of question that is not being asked and answered..and it's that question that I am interested in if I can ever find anyone who understands the question.
So, let me help jog your memory...there is nothing I am gonna articulate that derives the propriety of State force...remember I am anarchist (just to pile on another layer of complexity that we aren't communicating through)...If an individual is transgressed against, HE is the one transgressed against. He has the propriety of force (not initial use of force, but responsive force used against the initial use of force). Let's say he is a pipsqueak, and the transgressor is a brute. Obviously, he cannot effectively wield his proper force alone...he either (in a simple society) gets help from the other law abiding members of society (who have every incentive to help him BTW)...or he (in a more complex society) has already previously contracted with an insurance/protective company, that will act on his behalf. Yeah, yeah, there are a thousand questions you can now bog down the conversation with...yes, if the other law abiding members of society won't help him, he's buggered...and so are we all. Yes, yes...and no, no...to the thousand questions coming my way about how an anarchist society could possibly work. That's why I didn't start at that point to begin with...we're done at this point...you already disagree with so many things by this philosophical point that we just dance around and make no progress in coming to agreement. And again, that's with you, you and me being closer together philosophically than say Daniel and I...so what possible hope do Daniel and I have for a genuine argument, if me and Jeff can't even get off the ground.
I have had no success, so far, in asking some basic questions of people of different beliefs...please, please...someone else ask what they think are some basic questions that have to be answered before we can move to more complex questions. Maybe someone else can find a place of agreement...but I am a little despairing...if sorting through the conditions and pre-conditions of the very process of argumentation is not the place to start, I don't have a clue where that place is, or if it even exists...but that leaves only force...and that can't be the answer. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2011 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is where you and I disagree. I make a distinction you do not. You say:
"If an individual is transgressed against, HE is the one transgressed against. He has the propriety of force (not initial use of force, but responsive force used against the initial use of force)."
But to me, there are two kinds of force that can be used by the one transgressed against. One is self-defense. The other is vengeance. We agree that self-defense is proper. But I don't agree that vengeance is legitimate for humans unless God delegates HIS VENGEANCE to them. This He has done with the institution of government, IMO. That's why, IMO, the government can use DETERRING punishment, but individuals can't. God has never delegated to individuals, AS INDIVIDUALS, the right to avenge themselves, IMO.
Thus, anarchism isn't the issue. Even anarchists of the LewRockwell type allow for DETERRING force so long as it is implemented by free market decisions. As such, anarchism IS a form of governmental action. Because it uses force that is over and beyond SELF-DEFENSE. Only God can delegate that right. For vengeance (i.e., deterring force) is GOD'S.
Does Hoppes oppose punishment of adults by adults? Or is he just saying that market conditions lead to more effective deterring force than non-market forces? If the former, then isn't he a pacifist of sorts? If the latter, he believes that humans can use force against others OVER and BEYOND that necessary to defend oneself or others from immediate threats to life, limb and property.
The fact is, even self-defense is believed to be warranted BECAUSE we believe there are human rights. There is no escaping the concepts of rights and duties when trying to justify the use of force. But self-defense and deterring force are distinguishable, IMO. One addresses actual and present necessity. The other addresses necessity that hasn't yet occurred.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/24/2011 10:07:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/24/2011 10:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Basically if someone doesn't already agree with your held beliefs about the Bible, there just isn't going to be a place to find agreement? I'm really asking.
Try finding a place we agree on that doesn't have the Bible as it's basis. | | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|