Productive self-experience. The framework that determines our value through others is paradoxically narcissistic, despite a reliance on others, because there is an absence of an active orientation towards being. — TimeLine
Either that or they could only save one life, so they did what they could do. The couple did a deed far greater than I, as I adopted no one. I'd also say that even if (and I don't think it's the case) this couple adopted a child and saved him from misery and did it for no reason other than for fame and attention, I still applaud them. A child saved is a child saved, regardless of intent.I read recently that a couple adopted a child from Thailand and the mother had twins, but they took only one child and never looked back neither did they help the family. To them, adoption was an image, they did not actually care about the child clearly by not caring about the family of the child, they just wanted a token adopted child for social reasons rather than moral. — TimeLine
We generally ask both questions - if you imagine that we must treat each and everything in the world by solely asking what we can do for them is (somewhat) silly I think. As I said before, we always see the world from both vantage points - both as a world of things and as a forum for action. Indeed, if we didn't see it as the former, then we couldn't act, because any action implies using things in some way or another. Now you might say that only some kinds of usage are ethically permissible, and that is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that we always see the world from both vantage points.Ask not what the rose can do for you, ask what you can do for the rose. — TimeLine
You're talking about the dichotomy of thing in itself and appearance and have no clue what that even means. Great. I mentioned that your metaphysics isn't very good, no wonder you don't participate in many of the metaphysical discussions here. — Agustino
I don't object to that, but please don't use a word with heavy connotations when you want to put forward this sort of idea, because then you'll be misunderstood.I don't follow why one couldn't believe that our perceptions have been skewed by societal expectations and then further hold that we can somehow transcend our skewed perceptions and then correctly perceive the thing in itself. That is a common view afterall. It's the idea that clarity can be obtained by contemplation, meditation, prayer, or whatever. I get that it's counter to Kant, but so what? I'd think even the staunchest direct realist would admit to false perceptions, yet contend they could be clarified. — Hanover
Can I summarize this then as it's better to give than receive and we should take time to smell the roses because there's meaning even in the smallest moments? I'm not sure who disagrees, and I think attributing the opposite view to the consumer driven capitalists is a strawman. Adhering to an economic philosophy for pragmatic purposes says nothing of the person's theological position. My cite to Joel Osteen was meant to point out that you are espousing traditional Judeo-Christian values, which are held most closely by the consumers you condemn. — Hanover
Either that or they could only save one life, so they did what they could do. The couple did a deed far greater than I, as I adopted no one. I'd also say that even if (and I don't think it's the case) this couple adopted a child and saved him from misery and did it for no reason other than for fame and attention, I still applaud them. A child saved is a child saved, regardless of intent. — Hanover
Kant also accepts that idea - that we can be mistaken in our views about empirical reality, and these mistakes can be corrected. Kant's distinction is between thing-in-itself and phenomenon. The thing-in-itself is unknowable. Within the phenomenon, we have the distinction between the empirically ideal and illusory, and the empirically real. So when you're in the desert and hallucinate an oasis, that is empirically ideal, and you can achieve clarity about this, and overcome this false perception. But overcoming this false perception has nothing to do with gaining access to the thing-in-itself, and starting to talk about the thing-in-itself in this context really confuses matters, because the word already has a philosophical baggage. — Agustino
everyone including yourself have become property — TimeLine
If subjective experience is noumenal then we are attaching knowledge to the unconscious realm, which is unknowable. — TimeLine
Subjective experience is phenomenal. The object of the phenomenon is noumenal. If you say the noumenal is knowable, reading generously, I read that as rejecting Kant as opposed to misunderstanding Kant, but I can't follow your suggestion that the subjective is noumenal (i.e. the phenomenal is noumenal). — Hanover
Certainly the idea of a wife as property is way way less prominent in contemporary culture than it was, so i can't see how consumerism somehow made that phenomenon worse. And I don't see how you can make the jump to friends and family being property based on that seemingly innacurate portrayal of wives as property. — Noble Dust
You could love a person not because you actually love them, but because they epitomise the right type of object that furthers your social position. It is the same thing, just more sophisticated. — TimeLine
And I'd reiterate that the escape from consumerism in modern society (in the grand ole USA at least) is typically religion, where a higher power decrees meaning and worth regardless of social standing and material wealth. — Hanover
They didn't need to 'save' anything, the amount of money they spent taking this child away from his twin and his mother could have been used to give the entire family a comfortable life and both children an excellent education in their respective country. — TimeLine
I am currently moving through an adoption arrangement in Australia (known as Permanent Care) and despite the fact that the child cannot be taken care of by the parents due to a number of possible reasons and hence why the courts take responsibility that enable the order for myself to be the primary carer on a permanent basis, if the parents are still alive we are legislated to ensure visitation rights a number of times. Because, psychologically, this is important for the child. — TimeLine
The church and state are divided, and that's a good thing. What's left is a legislature that can impose laws, but it doesn't operate with any moral authority. Do you turn to your city council for moral direction? We've very intentionally created a godless government, so, yeah, if you want God, you have to go to church. — Hanover
I know nothing of Thai law, but are you suggesting the child was sold from a needy family as opposed to the child being without capable parents? — Hanover
In the US, the termination of parental rights is extremely difficult as long as the parent expresses an interest, but the suggestion that it is based on protecting the interest of the child is wishful thinking. Many of these children would benefit if their parents just let them go. That's a sad reality. The state's hesitancy to terminate parental rights is based as much on its protection of the sanctity of the family unit as it is on the needs of the child. — Hanover
I am as certain that most adoptions are for reasons pure and true as I am that your adoption will be. — Hanover
Subjective experience is defined as phenomenal. Are you positing the subjective as an objective entity that experiences? Maybe I'm not following you. The world of experience (the subjective) is phenomenal. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.