All collie breeds are beautiful, exact temperaments that I like in dogs; protective, gentle, and loyal but still active and fun to hang out with. Eliott hardly moves. :-} I also got the chance to hang out with a Kelpie when I was younger in the country, but it wasn't long. When I get out of this place where I have a backyard, ill consider a rough collie.

Rotties Rock 8-) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Rottweilers can be aggressive, almost scary, probably because they are physically too powerful. Basset Hounds sleep for 20 hours a day! But my favourite breed are Border Collies though, but I don't have a large enough backyard for them. :’(

Is there any truth to John McEnroe's statements? Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true? What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements? — geospiza

I think the exaggeration of being 700th can be interpreted as insulting to females but being McEnroe we kind of understand he does not intend offence. If someone else said it, it may have been different. Despite Michael' logic (?), the actuality of such a statement is that she would not be considered the best player if she were involved in men' circuit, that is, there are certainly many male tennis players that outrank her skill. That is true. Not that she would or wouldn't be 700th exactly (again, Michael ?) but that there are a great many skilled male players over the last century.

Baden is right in saying that it is pointless.

My dog could beat your dog any day... at sleeping that is. :D Lazy, loyal bastard that I love to death.

I love the lyrics. He is great when you are as tired as me.

Forgiveness - observe, without attaching positive or negative connotation to your thoughts and words; with judgment removed, you can replace condemnation with compassion, and truly forgive yourself and others — CasKev

I have never received an apology, not once in my entire life despite some hefty wrongdoings made against me. It has always been my fault. It was very hard living with the suffering and remorse was a welcome desire in an attempt to alleviate that suffering, but the likelihood of this is extremely rare. I recommend watching Dead Man Walking. In the end, there is no forgiveness necessary, just a desire for their penitence so that the experience can become past-tense and you can move on peacefully. In the event that this is not possible, come face to face with it and see it for what it is, teaching yourself to continue walking upright and ignore the hurt so that you don't change who you are.

Develop Awareness
You are not your thoughts - your true self is the formless observer that is aware of your thoughts
Presence - presence is achieved by using the five senses without background inner dialogue — CasKev

Is this no different to being rational and objective? That through introspection, one should observe the validity of their own thoughts without the influence of their emotions?

I believe that negative emotions exist for a reason, a subjective language telling us what reason cannot articulate. It is subjective pain; we feel physical pain to prevent hurting ourselves, a biological survival instinct. Negative or bad emotions are subconsciously telling us something is wrong, but because we don't understand what exactly, our subjective instincts seek out pleasure to avoid this sensation of subjective pain. Just like when we are physiologically fit and healthy - our natural state - we feel energy and movement, happiness, in my opinion, is our natural state, a freedom from these negative feelings. We are loving by nature, and so, it is an attempt to return back to our state of nature, yet our subjective instinct in this case is failing us because we avoid what our negative emotions are trying to tell us.

Peace is not the absence of emotions, but rather being capable of articulating what our emotions are trying to tell us; when we reason accurately as to why we feel this subjective pain rather than avoid it by justifying and seeking out fleeting ways to make us feel better, we are able to eliminate the toxic that influences these feelings because we get to the root cause. We find the antidote. Once eliminated, we return to our natural state. That very peace you speak of.

I do agree that control is an illusion, but reason is absolutely necessary so that our judgements are appropriate for both others and for ourselves. Sometimes being uncharitable can strengthen and benefit others, for instance. We just need to doubt our judgements, to not believe in it as one believes they have absolute control. Angry people tend to be the most presumptuous, telling themselves that what they believe must be true.

I must admit I'm not following the part in the middle, from where you start "...to say 'consciousness' is to..." all the way to "...where being conscious is to consciousness itself..." -- My best guess is that saying and meaning "consciousness" is sort of a bootstrap operation whereby we both become aware of ourselves and reality, and given that then in-authentic modes of being would make us not aware of one or the other, since consciousness requires both. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "constructed reality", though. — Moliere

Perhaps this is the best place to start; I have a big day driving the company car to the country for work tomorrow and I can only relax when I get all philosophical in the evening. Metaphysics helps me sleep like a log. :-d

When I say 'we' I speak of intentionality, that every mental act is directed to the external world and that our first person interpretation of these perceptions are not isolated from our experience in a shared social environment. This epistemic interface enables the language to communicate between the mental activity with the external object, but it does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is accurate and distinct counterfactual beliefs of the same object could easily be expressed. If our interpretation is merely a preconditioned discourse of a shared social history, while it may appear deceptively close to us as an 'I' (singular thoughts) we are really subject to the limitations of a reality constructed by our shared epistemic interactions ('we') that alters (like Wittgenstein' language games) the meaning of these experiences. Autonomy is to describe an absence of this reliance of this cognitive limitation and unmask the force of society or our external relations on our interpretations of reality, to dispute the authenticity of the decisions and opinions we hold and ascertain whether the interpretation of our interiority is genuine. Are we alienated from ourselves as a compromise, acting on the periphery of who we are for the sake of maintaining this common social reality?

To reach the parallel between an epistemologically objective but ontologically subjective experience rather than being automaton in ones reliance on others, lived experience is to separate ourselves from the reliance of this shared content and use the functions of our mental properties and the pre-existing cognitive tools to interpret the external experiences consciously. Indeed, we are the modal initiative, that is the experience of consciousness is authentically singular ('I') but reaching this transcendence is circular in that consciousness of the external world is a feature of self-consciousness. One can overcome being passively subordinate or a conforming subject to become aware of the vastness of the spatial network and regain an awareness of their own selfhood within this collective network and where phenomenal content is autonomously experienced.

The more we study ourselves (introspection) the more our deliberations of the external world become rational, our interpretations are no longer reliant on this collective ego where thoughts are falsely singular and where one has a self-centred preoccupation that is deficient in empathy within the context of a public self (which is why capitalism finds this mutual engagement highly advantageous). One becomes autonomous and begins to use the already inherent cognitive processes independently. Yet to overcome this psychological egoism and become aware of this external world is only possible through empathy, through moral consciousness or love. It is like stepping outside of yourself to see yourself or as Kierkegaard would say "the self is a relation that relates itself to itself" but it is not about reflecting or mirroring ourselves to ourselves in an isolated, poetic way, but rather reflecting ourselves through others but doing so consciously or autonomously.

I am a fan of Kantianism, but ultimately I am perhaps more aligned with neoplatonism. It is hard to say, really (I got platonism too).

Too blasphemous for my Puritan'ian ears. — Question

Gotta watch out with those BDSM master-slave relations. — Question

I wouldn't know. But, I gather that Blackadder would put Nietzsche in his place.

Don't forget sir that the modern church smiles on roaring and gorging within wedlock and indeed rogering is keenly encouraged. — Blackadder

Is this sort of what you are getting at? — intrapersona

Nope.

Hegel was a staunch believer in marriage though so go figure. — Question

I didn't know that. I have been thinking about what it would be like having a pet husband, feeding it and having fun together.

Gender roles are absolutely learned, but at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn. — intrapersona

We construct our identity under a shared discourse within an 'imagined community' according to Anderson, where our values are designed within social constructs that are invented to hold the community together, what Hobsbawm similarly concluded viz., an administration of a State where ideology motivates a national character that enables social cohesion. The continuity of these imagined landscapes are rooted in traditions and while such beliefs are imagined, the experience itself is actually real because it provides an interpretation of this experience with others.

It can also, however, be used as an instrument to mobilise rather strategically a shared agenda that legitimises power, hence Othering where the anti-semite creates the Jew as Sartre would agree. The Other and the apparent existence of properties that are universal becomes the source that legitimises their created identity and ultimately the domination. It is a desire for power.

Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined, however as mentioned earlier are nevertheless real because as Foucault states, power in discourse is enabling a productive network that efficiently strengthens hierarchies by authenticating 'truths' within these imagined concepts, i.e. gender.

So it is 'true' that all women have feminine attributes and it is 'true' that all men have masculine attributes, when we all know that this is not true. There are many women with masculine attributes and many men with feminine and so, gender is imagined. Sex/biology and feminine/masculine are two different concepts.

What do you consider to be a 'fallen angel', and what sort of support do you typically offer? — CasKev

I think Bansky pretty much sums it up:



A good person, someone with talent and capacity who may have been hurt in someway and without the right figure in their lives seek comfort in all the wrong places. It is why I chose a career working with disadvantaged children. I too have been at crossroads many times myself, choices that could have led me to very different circumstances. I luckily had a ridiculously strong desire to protect myself and an innate sense of virtue that I wholeheartedly believed in and kept me withdrawn from such dangers. Completely withdrawn, actually. Being on my own since I was very young and having no one to look up to, I feel strong enough now to give love to those children who similarly never had love so that they too can find the strength to take care of themselves.

Not that you are one of those children, but I guess we are all still the same child inside.

Lasagna in the oven, friends coming over for dinner, nice and warm. (L)

I think it's reasonable for me to be bothered by your refusal to explain your claims with more depth. — Heister Eggcart

As you yourself said, that is one point of many. If you want me to clarify something in my argument, make it clear where and why you feel it may not be correct rather than simply hurl out profanities. You have made absolutely no arguments yourself and such a tactic is a way to avoid disclosing your clear inability to be philosophical.

Yes, please present your argument for why domination/submission has nothing to do with gender. — Heister Eggcart

Are you serious? Are you saying men are never submissive and only women are or that men are only dominating etc? "Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. Patriarchal cultures that encourage dominant-submissive roles are not formed due to anything inherent in our chromosomes; such roles are relational. It is driven by a mutually constitutive social experience that attempts to engineer relationships and when in excess - as in, when one person/sex has an excessive need to dominate - exploitation, violence, and other morally abhorrent activities are encouraged to strengthen such differences.

You can be dominated in other capacities, though. — Heister Eggcart

No, it is impossible to dominate me because this submission relies on my consent, which I will never give even in the event where I am coerced by a dominating force. My will is too strong. Submitting to a form of domination must be consensual because it is psychological in nature. The relationship itself is the force of domination while submission to this relationship is the act of being submissive, but there are healthy forms of domination/submission. Hence, why I said that only when I trust the other person enough to believe in their love or care will I 'let go' so to speak, despite the vulnerability as it puts my independence at risk. It is the same trust we allow when we submit to an ideology or government, religions or cultures etc.

That is one unsubstantiated point among many, none of which you responded to because I don't think you know how. As I mentioned to T Clark, if you're not willing to defend your assertions in a social environment like this, then why are you here? If this forum is merely a sounding board, then why are you so bothered by others who dare disagree with you? — Heister Eggcart

Are you saying that this is a reasonable disagreement with me?

I just imagine her smoking a truckload of hashish after getting off work in Jordan or wherever she is. — Heister Eggcart

Defend my assertions? That domination/submission is psychological and that gender is irrelevant. The only reasonable response was the following:

It actually seems like you're dominated by your own unwillingness to trust or love anyone. — Heister Eggcart

It is not that I am antagonistic or unwilling towards love, rather I am waiting until I trust in the love from someone enough to consequently submit to a relationship. The reason it makes a person feel vulnerable is because of this submission to a relationship and the latter is the dominating force because it may feel like your independence is taken away. I was merely trying to point this out using an example of how - as a woman - I cannot be dominated.

In my brief experience, there's a lot more cranky than there is reason from many posters here. Cranky is a polite term for it. — T Clark

I thought it was fun? I said that this thread is gender-bias and I got the following:

TimeLine's posts always read like they were generated — Agustino

I just imagine her smoking a truckload of hashish after getting off work in Jordan or wherever she is. — Heister Eggcart

it's just that arrogance and pride blind her from being more compassionate. — Agustino

A fittingly vacuous response from a typically stupid poster. — Heister Eggcart

As mentioned, these threads merely expose the type of person the authors are as they attempt to answer it, and why would anyone want to respond to such people is beyond me.

This is called the "method of diagrams" and is one way to avoid talking about satisfaction. Kripke himself proved that this idea can be deployed successfully to entirely avoid objectual quantifiers (see his paper "Is there a problem with substitutional quantification?". where he shows that, given a language L for which truth has already been defined, we can extend L by introducing substitutional quantifiers and this extension is well-defined). — Nagase

I don't disagree with Kripke, rather I was merely pointing out the flaw in Quine' interpretation of the objectual quantifier viz., the range of variable values. I will try and read that paper, despite being completely overworked at the moment.

That is just like barking back at a dog and trying to justify why you would do that.

Kripke' view that there is a difference between name and descriptions, which challenges the idea that a name that can be replaced by a description and be 'bound by a variable' so without a remainder. But if names do refer to objects, the real-world actual existence of F does not make sense of non-existing objects, such as "the king of France is bald".

I believe I'm at a disadvantage when trying to use this approach. Being on anti-depressant medication seems to really dull the 'unhappy' emotions, making it difficult to identify the indicators in present experiences. Unfortunately, stopping the medication in order to fully feel isn't a very realistic approach in today's world. — CasKev

I would not recommend stopping medication without proper supervision, however as long as your cognitive capacity remains in tact, which is certainly clear by your highly articulate posts, introspection as you reflect on previously felt experiences can be just as effective. It is really the habit of reflecting with honesty and taking an epicurean approach by effectively considering all potential possibilities that contribute to an experience. As mentioned, sometimes these experiences are too difficult hence the very reason why they are suppressed, and that is why fiction writing or drawing can gradually release those causal factors.

As said in V for Vendetta, artists use lies to tell the truth.

Not necessarily. Existence, satisfying existence, can also be learning to accept what you have and to give up your illusions. — T Clark

You cannot give up on your illusions simply by accepting them, that is quite simply giving in to your illusions. Giving up your illusions is to accept your own state of nature, to withdraw from relying on other people' points of view and find your own and when you are for yourself, that is when you begin to actually exist.

You seem to be a person of will. I have this image of you facing a problem by getting out the wrenches, putting the car up on the lift, and getting your hands covered with oil. That isn't a criticism. You're not an engineer, are you? — T Clark

i have to admit, I really enjoy the way that you write. Your initial post in the other thread about the train was just golden. This will is very much about my survival (both physically and my identity) and prefer to find what is causing the problem rather than continuously cranking the gears as the muffler blows out loud shots of exhaust to the dismay of others. The reality is that I grew up on my own and thus was compelled to a daunting reality that required self-regulation to preserve my own physical well being but also remain virtuous despite having no one protect me. We are all under threat in some way, but I have or at the very least am attempting to find a balance between being strong-willed and independent while remaining gentle and kind as I am naturally. It is my feminine side that has a liking to care for and help support 'fallen angels' if they so choose to accept, those people I find are suffering unnecessarily and it hurts me to see that.

I speak of a different type of control; it is not an absence of considering psychological, social and environmental factors, but rather appreciating that since you are the centre of these experiences, strengthening an understanding of your past will give you the clarity to become one with your present experiences.

He took "there exists" to mean exactly what it seems to, and argued that if somewhere in, say, a theory of physics, you have an expression like "∃x F(x)" then your theory is committed to the existence, real-world actual existence, of something that is F. — Srap Tasmaner

While it may seem compatible with natural language, the difficulty here is ascertaining the validity of the underlying quantification F as there are modal differences between names and descriptions.

Speaking for myself, most of my posts have been about what is and what is not respectful to women. You are no more qualified to address that than I am. — T Clark

I have no problem with your posts, but as you can see from those two morons you continue to try and rationalise with and who merely exemplify the point I was attempting to make about abusive/dominating characteristics stemming from psychopathology, I do wonder why you bother. All women are all different so there is no gender in the subject and its relevance is farcical.

I've addressed many emotional issues through therapy, but your comment makes me question whether I still have unresolved issues floating around at the subconscious level. The trouble is in trying to identify what those issues may be, or to pick up on themes that seem to be recurring in my conscious thought processes. — CasKev

It is hard and the moment where you feel the burden or heaviness rather intensely, usually instigated by some present experience, it is important to fight that feeling by mapping out the architecture of why it was felt in the first place and that can be extremely difficult because articulating something unknown but felt is like trying to colour a black canvas. Writing fiction stories or painting and drawing images that are formed during these experiences actually support this articulation as it is a form of communication with yourself as your own personal language. Attaining the skills to deal with the feelings or medicating a silence to the emotions do not actually assist you to confront why they are there in the first place and thus you will never really recover from the depressive feelings.

This is the same as forming a 'perfect' life and many people sacrifice their deeper, subjective wants by forming a nuclear existence according to which society or your environment dictates as enabling the happiness (thus the absence of depression), but as you yourself are aware, that doesn't actually help resolve it either. Existence is taking that responsibility by becoming self-conscious and accepting your separateness rather than relying on external factors.

*Yawn

If that is being, then what would you say a modality of being is? Would you say that the egotism you describe is such a mode? (And, if so, then what is an authentic mode?) — Moliere

We are the modal initiative; to say 'consciousness' is to enable the necessary preconditions that initiate an awareness or lived experience of the external world by making it 'conscious' rather than asserting a constructed reality. Indeed, if self-consciousness is a feature of consciousness (thus circular or reflexive) where being conscious is to consciousness itself, any authentic modes of experience requires the subject to be aware of the subject. Empathy, for instance, removes itself from egotism and one becomes morally consciousness.

All this talking about women this and women think that and woman behave such and such. All coming from men.

Telling.

As an authority on the subject of women, I can assure you that we are different from one another and any attempt to rationalise gender-bias particularly through evolutionary or biological differences uncovers more about you as a person.

The act of submission and domination is psychological and gender is irrelevant. The anxiety of losing control provokes measures that seek domination of another and enables a masking of this powerlessness, conversely and likewise such submission to a dominant force is born from the same anxiety but respond by transferring control. Such psychological sado-masochism is a intentional programme - just like fascist ideology - where the abuse by the dominant enables the doubt and the very impairment that provokes submission.

A 'relationship' is the dominating force; a dialectic or struggle whether individuals or socially since what we psychological experience moves outside of the human mind and projects objectively to external objects and interactions we have with others. If you are submissive or dominating, you choose to be and psychological maturity or a healthy relationship involves an equal/shared respect and admiration for one another' individuality, where the only submission is to the trust in the love you have for the other. It is why relationships can make a person feel vulnerable.

The acceptance of our separateness or individuality (self-consciousness) in a Hegelian sense prevents unhealthy relationships both individually and socially, which is why I have never submitted neither can anyone dominate me because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough.

What I got from it was that humans are basically animals with highly evolved intelligence and consciousness, who develop coping mechanisms - mainly rejection of negative thought, anchoring on items or ideas of importance, and distraction - to deal with the absurdity of life. — CasKev

The key here is that we have coping mechanisms that enable us to reject negative thoughts, the problem itself being the rejection and that we are instinctually compelled to avoid negative feelings. When you think of victims of PTSD for instance after a car accident, the increased production of glucocorticoid along with amygdala (limbic system) causes the individual to be unable to turn the emotional experience of that car accident into a past-tense experience, so they may go on for months after the event continuously feeling similar sensations - anxiety, stress, fear - even though their day-to-day activities are normal. We have defence/coping mechanisms to suppress experiences that are not wanted or that we are incapable at conscious level to articulate and thus ignore or avoid the experience that becomes visible in sensations of ongoing anxiousness. Both depression and anxiety are defence/coping mechanisms but in two very different ways so I am not confident that it is a 'higher evolution' as you say when it comes to depression, but a rather talented variation of confronting trauma. If you think of PTSD again, the continuation of feelings of sadness and doubt is caused because one has not been able to turn the emotional experience of the trauma into past-tense and thus confronted it (brought it to consciousness), so they go on living day-by-day feeling the same way even though their circumstances may not render those feelings justifiable. These feelings of both anxiety or depression are actual thoughts that you have not yet brought to conscious level and so you are experiencing it emotionally and because you cannot articulate those emotions, you use justifications for them; so sadness and despair equates to existential pointlessness, when really that is not the case but just your way of trying to explain the feelings. Only honesty can motivate any sense of genuine recovery.

I believe I'm understanding what you're saying about ego projecting. Is it really me connecting to a dimension of reality or is my ego masking a reality that unconsciously fulfills its needs (relationships, empathy, etc..)? I feel like the two can be distinguished through having a solid understanding of the self - or, contrarily and more commonly, inappropriately confused in those that don't. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Well, it is clear through the anthropomorphic projections we place on God that perhaps proves the limitations of how far consciousness itself can go and this very ego-projection; it is ultimately a language of archetypes where epistemologically we require these symbols and characteristics that enable us to make sense of the external world. If there is no escape from this, if we require such 'potentials' that embody fundamental characteristics we model our identity with and pretend it to be an interaction with something outside of us, how can we tell if the experience of others is an illusion or if it is real? One quite easily becomes skeptical that an external world even exists but we need to draw a line somewhere and that would be to find the route enabling us to distinguish between appearance and reality, of seeing past the mere constructs of mental states. As you said, this solid understanding of the self. But, what is that? How can you tell me whether you have a solid understanding of yourself or whether you falsely think you have a solid understanding of yourself? Think about those people who all look and behave the same and yet materially think they are 'individuals'.

However, there are many people with spiritual beliefs. I think one thing that separates a lot of them from me is that I'm willing to take it one step further to see if my..."spiritual experiences" are projections of the self or tangible experiences of something, be it a god or something different, that transcends reality. — stonedthoughtsofnature

It is reasoning with yourself, a lens to our motivations, of why we feel a certain way at a given time, of the meaning to an experience and with time being linear (memory) to reflect and compare. Such introspection requires clarity, an honesty, it needs to step away from others so that it can learn to think autonomously and this requires a decision (free-will). Much of what we are is determined, as in we are epistemologically trapped by these projections so to speak, but consciousness is accessible and existentially this is perhaps the most frightening experience for people because it makes them aware that they are alone and separate from the external world, from all that they believed was real, family, friends etc, and the courage it takes to get through that is incredibly empowering. Sometimes, even the strongest of men can barely get through accepting this separateness.

I don't think it is a supernatural state as you say, rather it is just a process of mind, of training and practicing this consciousness of the 'self' by learning to be honest and it is not easy considering our identity is manufactured epistemically by these external symbols and characteristics. Platos' theory of forms shows that form of good is the most accurate representation of reality and if God is this representation of ultimate reality, of the source of self-completion that we ourselves seek, then seeking God is seeking this self-completion because striving toward 'good' or moral/virtuous enables us to abandon the ego. That process is the love of God, because in love or morality or conscience or empathy, we experience something outside of our ego. Some are driven by desires and deceive themselves by pretending it is 'love' (for instance, some may give to charity only so they can be applauded and praised, not because they actually want to give). Honesty is the key to genuine experiences.

I should add, comparatively the Master/Slave Dialectic comes to mind.

Hi pre-conception was that if you set up a system of perfect freedom of market competition, it would lead up to a system of perfect equality. It was an argument he carefully construed that we now know to be a really bad argument. — Saphsin

Indeed, most economic systems almost rely on inequality to maximise wealth, but from what I remember of Smith, equality is not the equal distribution of wealth, but that maximising economic wealth successfully - that is sustainably - must be done under the moral banner of freedom. While hierarchical divisions of labour exist, there is an economic system within each of those divisions that encourage wealth production (similar to how Foucault said that power - unlike Marx - could maximise productivity). That is, economic inequality must exist - a wealthy businessman and an impoverished labourer - but it doesn't necessarily mean that one should restrict the freedom of an impoverished labourer through means of say slavery but that they too should have the ability to change and move. This will provide the right economic dynamics that will enable equality, but not the equal distribution of wealth.

Adam Smith saw this policy (call Mercantilism) of making colonies as a mistake and instead thought it better to give them autonomy in decision making and sales of goods produced to the open market. Thus leading to great growth and prosperity and a lessening of resentment towards the British Empire. — Question

He was indeed an advocate for the rights of labourers by forming standards that would enable even the most impoverished to exercise better manoeuvrability that would maximise their options. But whether this 'freedom' meant that he encouraged the equal distribution of wealth is highly unlikely. It is difficult to ascertain whether his morality was merely a practical science that sought to adjust the attitude of society to boost productivity (that capitalism requires ethics in order to be successful) or whether his system of regulating practical actions of moral agency is for the pursuit of a good life; if the former, I am not sure whether he could even be classed as a philosopher.

From what I remember reading of him during my undergraduate, he rejects social contract theorists (in particular Rousseau) because economics is a 'present' and evolving structure and that capitalism requires ethics for success, which makes his understanding of freedom not so much a commitment to justice but rather the ethical impetus for a free-market that leads to the prosperity required to enhance moral agency; his criticism of the slave-trade and views on distributive justice may challenge the view that he was nothing but a manic for economics.

Everybody already had that freedom. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Last time I checked, same-sex marriage is not a freedom available for everyone.

But that is not what people mean when they say medical care is a right. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What do they mean?

Everybody talks about the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence like it means the freedom to try to obtain some desired psychological state. But according to Marilynne Robinson in this essay, Jefferson's happiness means not some psychological state that social scientists measure but "a level of life above subsistence". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Is this the same Jefferson that promoted the "right" to bear arms?

The principles of human rights was motivated to safeguard human dignity that is often undermined by a number of social, religious and political instabilities toward the establishment of a fair and equitable society. It is measured by the belief that all people deserve to live above subsistence (inalienable) despite gender, race etc., and serves as a reminder that Justice is the entitlement that will create the conditions of a community with the greatest distribution of happiness.

I think that this transcendence manifest itself to us as insight, an illumination that opens up a 'space' in our imaginations revealing possibilities that did not exist prior to our experience of the work... Beauty's power is more like an emotive/cognitive explosion, something that stops us in our tracks, transfixes us and can give us a new way of experiencing reality. — Cavacava

(Y) A type of awe and admiration that pulls us into a different but better or more improved direction.

Sorry buddy, done with your rubbish.

Medical care is a universal human right, some people say. An adequate diet is a universal human right, some people say. Marriage is a right, the Supreme Court of the United States said in Obergefell v. Hodges — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The freedom to choose who you want to marry within consensual boundaries is the point of the case and everyone has the right to medical care is to ensure that all people - refugees, homeless, drug-addicts - are provided with medical care; there have been incidents here in Australia where indigenous persons have been refused medical attention in certain clinics.

I agree that the lack of clarity could cause potential issues, for instance there has been a lot of discussion with what the right to leisure, play, and participation in cultural and artistic activities means in the UN Declaration on Children's Rights. But once more, where there is any lack of clarity, one needs to consider the purpose of the law itself, of justice to ascertain the purpose.

Yes, that's what law school is for, to train you as a lawyer. — Agustino

Is it?

And I'm neither a lunatic, nor screaming, I'm just asking you a few questions. — Agustino

Re-read your ridiculous posts; if you had an ounce of reason, you would see through what I was writing to ascertain the point of transcendental idealism but you are too arrogant and in your agitation and aggression say harsh and nasty things to people who are simply having a discussion. This is a forum, a place for people to talk and not to write essays and delve into topics that some people may or may not understand. I am talking to someone else, not you, and I am trying to talk as simple as I can.

Sure, I may make mistakes with my writing that can lead to being misunderstood, but having you stalk my every post and say the same thing over and over and over again about Trump and me saying 'authentic', it is not hard to think you are a lunatic. You ruin peoples threads and morale. A whinging, self-righteous little child.

If you have attended law school, then you are trained as a lawyer — Agustino

Really? Apparently, you know everything and are not just some screaming lunatic.

Were you trained as a lawyer? — Agustino

As I said, I am not a trained lawyer.