I would say this is generally true of adherents :P
I've never met a Kantian that thinks Kant is wrong, or a Humean that thinks Hume is wrong. lol — 013zen

What about Kantof Hume? Hehehe.

I'd be interested to hear more. I wouldn't say that he's making things up, but he does take himself to be doing something creative. — 013zen

He seems to have basically invented his own use of things like "language" "reality", "thought" and "object" and then run with it, in the same manner he apparently taught his student - everyone else is wrong.

One might then wonder why anyone bothers trying to make sense of it. — Fooloso4

I feeel this might be the most apt statement in this thread :P

I think that Wittgenstein, like any philosopher - or human for that matter - is simply thinking through these problems, and gets some things right and other things wrong. We read other philosophers to try and see how these problems have been handled, and what we can learn from them. — 013zen

I agree. Wittgenstein, though, is not treated this way by the majority of his adherents.

Plus, I was being a little bit more negative - I think he makes less sense than 'some right, some wrong'. He's mostly senseless, making htings up.

:ok:

No one making Deepak Chopra-like claims is serious. — Lionino

Except Deepak? hehe

A parochial example of where Sex and Gender come apart - and it matters.

This minister is using trans people as a political football here. It's 'despicable' is his words.
Someone who admits they squirmed their way into their portfolio, for ideological reasons, isn't even the standard dishonest politician. They are a liar.

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. — Chet Hawkins

Are you serious my guy?

offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane. — Chet Hawkins

Your self image is a rather impressive edifice

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well? — Chet Hawkins

Oh, interesting. :)

I am an antinatalist. I suppose providing ultimate joy would be cool but eradication is a safer bet

oh. I see…

Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void? — Arne

So, this isn't meant to be the usual dig it would be in a face-to-face conversation: Im not 'suggesting' anything - exactly what i wrote is my position. I'll reiterate:

it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

It doesn't exist outside of those minds (directly inferred from the above). It's not a suggestion: the above is my position. Morality does not obtain except as a thought of relation between a sentient observing subject and an action (to be verbose).

I asking for a elucidation of how you view morality obtaining outside of that parameter? Is it an inherent physical property? Is it a non-physical property floating around, or like an aura attached to certain events ? Im not being facetious - I'm interested.

many of Nietzsche's aphorisms are within my muscle memory... — Vaskane

Woah - Has Vaskane deleted his account and become Arne?

Id be interested to hear your take on how Morality exists outside of that context or, more discreetly: What does morality consist in, on your view?

I probably go further than you in thinking that even though it cannot be demonstrated, it is plausible to think that space, time. energy. entropy and causation are human-independently real given what a remarkably coherent synthesis the sciences present. But I also acknowledge there is no definitive measure of plausibility, so... — Janus

Fwiw, even on my slightly adjusted Indirect Realist account, this is still the case.

The law and morality are not the same and whether "evil" is outlawed by the former does not sever it from the latter. — Arne

Hmm, a few things to unpack here. Up-top, it's worth noting that this is not my position - It is my trying to clarify Timothy's. His account seems to suggest the quote you've used. I was pointing it out. I don't think its particualrly consenquential to the disagreemetn we were having anyway - it was just an external possibly objection that Timothy, if he can't make sense of it, might use to review his position. But, i take no position on whether i'm correct.

The absence of natural rights or the absence of law does not cleanse any behavior of its moral character. — Arne

That might be true, but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it (on my account/s) so i can't see this as at all relevant. An act, without causal an emotional valence in a sentient being does not have moral character, to me. So, I think it's not true, because of that. But, prima facie, I don't disagree with what you're getting across - i just don't accept objective morality.

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is. — Chet Hawkins

I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence.

Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:

How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. — Chet Hawkins

Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. — Chet Hawkins

)

dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim:

It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'. — Chet Hawkins

It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do.

I really don't think this issue involves morality. That is one of the chief problems I have with almost every activist I've ever encountered in any medium. Morality, usually, doesn't matter to solving the problem of reducing numbers of victims of whatever it is..

I saw half of your comment. Probably good you deleted it, but I'd like to say: ignoring the hyperbolic language, I think you merely let yourself say you true feelings. And for that, I hi-five you.

That’s too bad, I did. And though you can refuse it and pretend I didn’t, I’ll still be there granting you the right and defending it. — NOS4A2

Hehe, this is a two way street. And that fact (illustrated in a moment) provides me ample evidence that your position is not stable: You can claim this all you want, but you have no authority or standing to do so. That is entirely the crux of why you are wrong. You are inventing, out of thin air, an institution that doesn't exist. "rights conferred by NOS4A2" is nonsense, and you know it. Your ideals don't matter to anyone else but you. No one accepts your 'rights'. Therefore, they convey and confer nothing but your opinion on another person. Try 'conferring' a right counter to the Law in your locale.

Start small. Give your neighbor the right to borrow your lawnmower, or something. — NOS4A2

That would be a dispensation (though, that's a somewhat imprecise word - trying not to employ legalese). If he's borrowing something of mine, he has no right to it. I have abrogated my legal property rights to him, temporarily which gives him what's called "effective control" where I live. Conferring a right is not something I personally have the power to either effect, or enforce. It is a result, entirely, of the Law which I allows me to abrogate my legal right to another person. You can also do this via 'nominee' when entering into a contract. My wants and needs are secondary to whether or not i legally can abrogate my rights in such a way. I concede, though, there is a second level to this - certain rights can be conferred by the right-holder, by proscription of legal right in the first instance. Meaning, my ability to confer that right is express within the right which I actually have had conferred upon my by the granting authority.
There are several that I cannot do this with (depending on Jurisdiction, the majority of them). Your logic seems to suggest I can also do away with my own rights, at my own leisure. That, in the vast majority of cases, is not true, on either of our accounts it seems.

Might makes right. Or was it the best and brightest make rights? I can’t say I’m a big fan of social Darwinism either way, but limiting social power in favor of state power is the going rate, so you’re not entirely in bad company. — NOS4A2

I'm not entirely sure what the quip underlying this passage is, so If i'm making a fool of myself, fine... They are not, on my view, very much related. Social 'power' is a power separated from legal power. Rights, are not social entities other than to the extent a legal proscription causes certain behaviours. But, that's an externality to the authority conferring a right of whatever kind.

That is odd. Philosophers have been expounding and conferring rights long before any politician, bureaucrat, or jurist has codified them. Hell, some constitutions weren’t created until the disco era. Perhaps society is just a thief. — NOS4A2

While I am somewhat sympathetic to the line you're taking, no. No one but an authority has conferred any rights, ever. Philosophers have discussed them, and pretended to them (in the face of an enforcing authority which does not recognise them). Think: Why did Socrates drink the hemlock ;) There are no other rights. There are ideals. Even 'natural rights' only ever come into being once codified by an authority. The argument that they are derived from some universal, i reject, but even if that were true, the rights themselves are formal enunciations of 'natural ideals' for lack of a better term.

Yet I just granted you the right to free speech — NOS4A2

You absolutely did no such thing, in any sense of that word. If this is your conception of a 'right' I'd just say you're wrong and move on.. What you actually did was tell me you would do what you are now claiming you did do, and that was not to 'confer a right'. It was to act according to your moral outlook. That's fine. It is not a right, and you've conferred nothing on me. So, this was predictably lacking in anything establishing a right.

It is an opinion derived from argument and evidence, all of which attests to the merits of rights. — NOS4A2

Yet, it remains your personal, emotionally-informed opinion. It doesn't do anything but tell me that. I happen to agree on the 'merit' of enforceable rights, too. Says nothing for the disagreement we're having though.

If you have better arguments and better evidence in favor of, say, censorship or theft or kidnapping — NOS4A2

I literally have no clue what you are talking about. You're telling me that rights are derived from some objective, universal 'human nature'. This request has nothing to do with my objection to that.
I've not even tangentially made an argument 'against free speech'. I have no idea where you got that from.

The “universal” I’m talking about simply means the right ought to apply to everyone. — NOS4A2

Then you now seem to have dropped your initial claim. I agree, the right to free speech should be afforded everyone.

Yes, I’m an absolutist. Everyone should have the right to say what they want. Would you censor him? — NOS4A2

I would not. Again, it wasn't a 'gotcha'. I'm just interested - some of your responses have given different impressions. We seem to have similar values. I just reject your premise that rights exist outside of law (or analogous enforcement).

Until there is a law, however, that belief is nothing more than a belief there should be a law, or a right recognized by law. — Ciceronianus

:ok:

Just chiming in - To me, Hegel is ridiculous, pompous and barely says anything interesting, in my opinion. it is no wonder he inspired some of the most insipid, nonsense-laden philosophy of the following centuries. Even people who love his work seem to all devolve, eventually into "Maybe he was just talking shit..." and yeah, he clearly was. His self-aggrandizement may have been his biggest obstacle.

I believe they would find a way to instantaneously eradicate all sentient life. We wouldn't know or care. Nothing would happen from our perspective.

You seem to be hung up on the idea of enforcement, but no natural rights theorists claim that natural rights cannot be violated, it's that they should not be violated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This confuses me. I don't think that, haven't said that. Enforceability is what i've talked about. Not non-violability. A right wouldn't be a right if it wasn't violable. It would just be a state of affairs. A right is predicated on something being either given, or refused (i.e you have a right to 'something' or a right for others to not 'something'..). In this way, (and this is purely for your clarity) a right could only exist as a violable assertion of normative value.

The natural right then is something you can point to when justifying political action. E.g. "we are justified in revolting and demanding a constitution because the king keeps violating natural rights," or "this new bill should not be passed because it allows the state to violate natural rights." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which, as I have mentioned, is entirely incoherent. It makes a claim that doesn't stand up to anything at all, best I can tell being "violates natural rights". Err, you're gonna need to justify THAT.

So, "children categorically have a right not to be sold off as sex slaves," is a bridge to far for you because it wouldn't be relativistic enough? — Count Timothy von Icarus

While this is actually exactly counter to what I had said (my quote is charging NOS with being too relativistic), I am currently of the view that, while I could personally tell someone I thought what they were doing was wrong (this, if you need, can be that they want to sell their child into the sex trade) for x, y and z reasons but I have no right to enforce that opinion on them.
That's a bad example though, because I could defend removing the child from the scenario for other reasons than disagreeing with the vendor.

And why stop the relativism at individual cultures and societies? Why not let it apply to the level of individual communities or even individuals? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It does. hehe.

But then why is the "society" the proper dividing line for determining when relativism should kick in? Natu — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because that's where people have to get along. It would be counter to the aim of society (ie, practical, not moral) not to co-operate. So relativism has to breakdown here, to enable things like regulation to take any reasonable shape. This is basically business acumen at this point.

Society dictates rights? I’ve only seen men dictate rights. — NOS4A2

That's odd. Almost all modern sets of rights are come to by deliberation among, what are meant to be, the best and brightest of that society. Which goes to the next point too...

By “society” I assume you mean men in power. But it isn’t true, in any case, that only some men can confer rights. — NOS4A2

I disagree, and see no evidence to the contrary. More than open to it - but I would just be ready for it to be lacking, as this is, in fact, where rights come from presently.

And if you allow only politicians and lawyers the power to grant rights you make of yourself a slave or serf or some other subordinate, at any rate a sorry figure. — NOS4A2

It's not up to me, If i am to take part in society. I think perhaps you think you're not subject to society's policies?

The language faculties are universal. The right to free speech itself has been battle-tested in its own arena, put to the grindstone of trial and error over thousands of years, and has proven itself morally right and socially valuable both in argument and in practice. — NOS4A2

While I totally accept, and find reasonable this take, it is nothing but your personal opinion of the states of affairs previously seen in the world. The 'right to free speech' isn't absolute, anywhere, really. So, what's the "universal" you're talking about? It doesn't seem to obtain. It appears we, at least, value free speech to the same level, if not for hte same reasons.

Yes, anyone who doesn’t confer the right to free speech on others and defend everyone’s right to speak is wrong. — NOS4A2

I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose given your position in this thread I shouldn't be. I just didn't take you as this type of thinker. Interesting. I'm fine with you feeling that way, as it goes.
Would you say that someone should have the right to call another person (who, aesthetically fits the description) a "Big, fat gay n***a" as a derogatory term intended to harm the person's psyche? This is not a gotcha, I just wanted an example that the answer to would be a clear commitment one way or the other.

But the general practice exists in all social animals — Vera Mont

You are seriously suggesting that non-sentient animals have 'rights and obligations' rather than autonomous reactive behaviours limited by the survival tactics of the species? Interesting.

I also don't rule it out, nor would I personally find it unnerving to actually find evidence that such is the case. — noAxioms

Nice. Similarly, myself.

Was the group’s push for you to conform an example of ‘hive-mind’? — Joshs

It certainly appeared to be. My unwillingness to acquiesce to what I saw as genuinely horrible in-group policies (one particularly pernicious example in this (very gay) space was the insistence that it's a worthwhile endeavour to try to 'turn' straight guys) resulted in everything, and including physical (albeit, inadequate) persuasion, shall be say.

They basically have thought themselves into a corner. If they are unable to see the world through your eyes, you become a danger to them. — Joshs

(imagine i quoted that whole passage) That is pretty much precisely my feeling, but with a little added socialisation problem. Its a self-reinforcing group attribute to be this way. The opinion of hte group keeps your bound to this mode of thinking.

I dont believe in the concept of hive-mind, brain-washing or mindless conformity. People don’t blindly introject ideas from others. — Joshs

While I would reduce the effectiveness of this to a low proportion of the relevant occasions, I have seen this happen in real-time, so i can't agree entirely.

it is not because they are being blindly led by the hive-mind — Joshs

At a point, I think it is not reasonable to think otherwise, myself. That 100 people who are geographically-bound, and are all gay (i.e less than 5% of people to begin with) all thinking and feeling the same way is just 'the natural course' is bizarre and unsupportable to my mind.

they have gravitated to that group based on the fact that they have, as individuals, already arrived at that way of thinking. — Joshs

I reject this. Most people find groups because they don't know what to think. And this i see daily across society, at every level. I see this happening in real-time constantly. Some proportion of people in this situation likely do what you've desribed, and become the thought leaders of the group, or create their own, as the case may be. Most do not have teh mental strength and primacy of individuation to be this kind of robust personality among many similar (on my view).

Once you dig beneath the surface , you’ll find all sorts of splits in ideology among members of the same group. — Joshs

Generally, these are minimal and lead to schisms or outright rejections of certain members. The snake always eats its tail. So, while I agree, this actually goes to my point, I think. It is not true that groups of special interest affinity include those of differing political bents. There are no groups within the gay community in which Douglas Murray and Queer Eye are considered on teh same level.

y impression is that you have strong convictions and values yourself, and that there are issues where you blame others for their moral failings as seen from your perspective. — Joshs

This does not strike me as at all how i approach these matters. I judge behaviour. I don't give a piss what your morals are - morals are useless for me to assess you. Your actions will tell me what I need to know, in light of my own morals. And in that way, there is no 'blame'. I blame people for being assholes. Nothing so high-falutin' as a moral disagreement.

You wouldn’t be a part of the legal profession unless you believed in a concept of justice that is able to determine guilt and innocence. — Joshs

False - there is no necessity to believe in guilt and 'justice' as they are to be part of the legal profession. I know several local scholars (Ti Lamusse is one example) who got into the law literally to tear it apart. He has failed. But nevertheless.
As it transpires, my wanting to be part of this profession is actually to be entirely sui generis. I would rather not work for a firm, but I have to for at least another six years (though, by that point I hope to be teaching). I don't align myself with any community. I'm unsure where you inferring all this from. Law is not a group of affinity. It is exactly the opposite. We are adversarial and accept every strain of thought, as long as you're not losing your firm money. Simply doing a job doesn't apportion any group membership, other than optically from you, the viewer.

So what makes you different from that gay community who tried to impose their values on you? — Joshs

While you're being extremely thoughtful and respectful, this question strikes me as an absolute nonsense. There is nothing to defend - there is no similarity.

as a standard on the basis of which to judge others. — Joshs

Yes. And there is no issue, or relationship to the group-think, tyranny of opinion we're trying to discuss. Unsure where you were going there... seemed to change subject half-way through to moral disagreements per se.

but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. — Beverley

I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. — Beverley

This does certainly frame your comportment well. It is likely prudent, but I have no interest in such :)

You're welcome to :)

While I appreciate your very long reply, it is much more of the same platitudinous stuff that doesn't move me.

I think you are wrong, and you've not provided more than a continuing repetition of your position, without much argument. Your points aren't lost on me - they just have nothing to do with the objections i've put out. It does, though, seem as if this is a deep ideological commitment and discussion isn't eaxctly something that moves you either. It seems that your position is essentially one where you've taken other people's positions on as your own, and labeled yourself just so. That isn't my vibe, and I genuinely don't think you're making a reasonable point.
So be it :)

@Beverley In the previous exchange, I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. But it is my choice to interact with you, so I take that on as it comes. Its nothing something you should apologise for. I am merely observing why I navigate your posts with that type of trepidation, and ahve a short fuse for prevarication.

Link is fully live and embedded from my end... ah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4yh2NZ0kJw&pp=ygUcYmVuIGhvd2FyZCBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIGFmZmFpcg%3D%3D

I know human beings need to express themselves — NOS4A2

Hmm. Do you? How? What's the premise for this which is...

Universal, fundamental and inalienable — AmadeusD

You will need something a little better than "i know..XXX" for this to be applicable.

And alternately, how does the 'right to free Speech' relate to a 'natural' right derived from a human 'need' to 'express' themselves? These are all contingent and not in any way fundamental, universal or inalienable. You'd have to claim that any society who doesn't enforce the same rights you do, is wrong. I cant really see that happening... (by this I mean, you don't come across as either a Moral absolutists or someone willing to claim their culture is the 'right one' per se)

Luckily, I've just covered the reality: Society dictates rights based on the socially-bound behaviour of it's members. Nothing about 'human nature' exists in this.

Human nature dictates that sex is the paramount goal of being a human being. This comes closer to the three criteria than does 'free expression'... Yet, this is not a right. And only what we considered 'backward' cultures would deem it so.

The video title is apt. Perhaps an understatement.

Cool, so we're getting somewhere.
Natural rights theory states that these rights are derived, directly, with impugnity, from human nature - Universal, fundamental and inalienable. However, there is literally no such right.

Can you please make that make sense for me?

Yes, rights come from men, believe it or not. Yes, men can enforce rights. Are you not of the species? The idea that rights can only come from men of authority or officialdom is both ridiculous and obsequious. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure you're grasping the immense problem for your account i've laid out:

If, as you note, rights only come from men (i.e the species Man) then they are artificial products of minds. A strong man is an enforcing authority - think of the family unit, circa 1950 or whatever time suits your conception.
SO, where are these 'natural' rights coming from? Well, the answer is the exact same place all rights come from: They are made up in the minds humans.

Bostrom assumes otherwise, but whatever realm is running his simulation doesn't need to be a universe like our own. — noAxioms

That it is another universe, is one of hte ridiculous premises required for its probability to be an effective argument. This is what I'm getting - on it's face, its mathematically almost certain we are in a simulation set up by future generations. But the invocations required to actually, practically, in real life take that seriously are unnerving to say the least, and perhaps the sign one is not being honest with themself.. if the theory convinces one.

You consider human nature and the natural world — NOS4A2

Ok, so we're just thinking about subjective stuff, okay... with you so far...

and derive a set of rights therefrom, — NOS4A2

This is, entirely, a non sequitur. Making up things people should and shouldn't do is a non sequitur here.

rights that would allow one to survive and live a life of dignity and happiness — NOS4A2

So, again, subjective stuff. Where's the 'right' coming from? Your mind? And enforced by?

A right is something enforceable. As Ciceronianus has made clear, the idea of a right in lieu of an enforcing authority is either redundant or incoherent. I take the latter. Like - it literally doesn't exist. It isn't there to be 'derived'. You're just looking at stuff, and thinking about what you'd like.

This should be a fun exchange fun.

I once again remind the rational and humane participants — or at least those with some decency — Mikie

You're precious, Mikie.

Overall I think he's an effective and articulate advocate for idealism. — Wayfarer

Agree with this - potentially the only one currently.

I've been meaning to find somewhere to mention - that five-hour Kastrup thing you laid out for me months ago was great. I've done more reading, and while I think Kastrup is on to something, I am slowly getting the message when another philosopher I speak with regularly noted "Kastrup is a cult leader" hehe. Seems very unopen to not-his-theories.

the American vision is about freedom of identity. Voting is a ritual that broadcasts that ideal: that you're responsible for your government. — frank

This was always my understanding - and, as with the Shapiro reference, I think its true. People f'ing it up doesn't change the basis.

Bostrom's speculation has always smelled grossly unparsimonious, to me. — wonderer1

I agree, generally. The paper, on it's face, is fairly convincing but it requires such a ridiculous set of premises (similar to the Fermi Paradox) that it doesn't seem all that apt to the Universe we actually inhabit.

I think temperamentally some people are more inclined to maroon themselves in narcissistic, directionless soul searching than others. It’s probably also prudent to determine what is self reflection and what is self dramatisation. — Tom Storm

Extreme clarity here, Tom. Nice :up:

This speaks to some of what I have been getting at in other threads where we've fallen short of coming to terms. Some temperaments are destined to wallow in their self-identity, and its a detriment at that point.

In your opinion. — Beverley

Sort of. It's an opinion to which i give my assent.

Rational thinking, and compassion are necessarily different things. Point taken, nevertheless. My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness.