Presumably not if I don't know about it. Would you say you have harmed me? I wouldn't even know where to begin to quantify a harm that I am unaware of. I don't know what would be the point of a contract you can break without my knowledge. — Soylent
So if we agree that I shall deliver you beef meat, and instead I deliver you horse meat, claiming that it is beef, and you take it, assuming it to be beef, I have done you no harm? If I have done you no harm, how can finding the truth harm you? Finding the truth in and by itself can certainly cause you no harm, can it?
If as a doctor I tell you that I'll give you an analgesic, and instead I give you a poison that will not only put you to sleep, but will also kill you, have I not harmed you? Afterall, you'll never know! — Agustino
I'll weigh in on this: it's wrong to lie, but we shouldn't outlaw lying.
The government need not intervene every time you are wronged. — Hanover
Also, I might add. Any human makes sense. But ALL humans don't, without this explanation. A fallacy of composition WoD, which assumes that if any individual human makes sense, nothing else is missing. Maybe "all humans" have properties which individual humans don't, just like how every single grain of sand is hard, while a pile of sand is soft. How much more embarassing do you want this to get? — Agustino
Ethical significance is not seen with one's eyes. It's a feature of an object which is understood. It's not understood in the act of looking at an object. Like many other instance of logical significance, like any part of an objects identity, it is a question of understanding some meaning of the object. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Just like all sand grains are hard, but certainly all sand grains are also soft.Incoherent. All humans are individuals. If all humans had a quality it would, by definition, by present on all individuals. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes. Neither is a natural tendency a property of any individual human being :)The softness of a pile of sand isn't a property of any individual grain. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It's a property expressed in the particular instance where there are many grains together. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world :)It is a notion of telos, that there is some force directing each the existence of state to a purpose, a "why" that the world supposedly needs to make sense. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Good. Thus it requires the processing of an understanding. — Agustino
Just like all sand grains are hard, but certainly all sand grains are also soft. — Agustino
Yes. Neither is a natural tendency a property of any individual human being — Agustino
Yeah... that's what you think, but is an error. Any group property is expressed in particular instance when there are many humans together.Exactly! A natural tendency is a property that is expressed in the particular instance where there are many human beings together! Finally you're seeing some light! How refreshing WoD — Agustino
But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world — Agustino
But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world — Agustino
That's exactly what we never have. Each meaning of an thing (including "relations" to other objects- e.g. the computer screen is 50 is cm away form my eyes) is its own discrete instance, which we have no access to prior to the presence of our understanding. No process of understanding occurs. If we learn the ethical significance of something, we do it not through "deriving" (i.e. now I understand this state and by seeing it I know it's bad), but through the brute appearance that something is (im)moral in our experience. There are no "steps." We either know about meaning, in which case we understand it, or we do not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Absolutely not. Only plies of sand are soft. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, grains of sand are hard is also an expression only given when there are man and sand grain together :)Only plies of sand are soft. It is an expression only given when there are man sand grain together. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, I haven't argued that a natural tendency is a property of the individual mate. Quite the opposite if you read what I wrote properly.A contradiction. That which is only a property of a group cannot be the property of an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, human beings, both gay and non-gay form the same group. Just like white swans and black swans form the same group, even though we can say the natural tendency for swans is to be white.No doubt "natural" and "natural deviation ( "unnatural" )" are thought to be group properties. That's there entire point: all non-gay people (a group), supposedly, make sense with respect to the telos of humans, while all gay people (another group) do not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, you have failed to illustrate any logical coherence even of your own position. Time and time again I have proved you wrong, and you have just moved the goal-posts behind. First, you argued it is a naturalistic fallacy. I have shown how according to the definitions historically used, it cannot be a naturalistic fallacy, and instead you are committing one. Then you have argued that what explains homosexuality are genes, and I agreed, and I told you that this is not a problem cause then my argument shifts to saying that non-gay genes are a natural tendency of human beings. Now you are arguing that something isn't a process of the understanding merely because one doesn't consciously go through a list of steps. You're also trying to argue something you don't even begin to understand regarding group and individual properties and are continuously mistaking what they entail - you don't even read what I wrote correctly. You fail to see two different meanings of all grains in use. And so on...So said the believer of every falsehood ever, Agustino. The limits of my vision here are logical coherence. To admit you "vision" is to commit a logical error. I'm not letting you get away with peddling logically incoherent arguments just because you happen to like the idea of telos. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, you are the one who has no argument, but insist you are right. What can I do? You insist you are right, so I tell you: perhaps, just like some people are myopic and cannot see at distance, so too you cannot understand these matters. That too is a fact, and it doesn't mean that they don't exist.You are making the "But I believe it so it must be true" argument here, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see it :)The claim of special knowledge unavailable to others, and a knowledge that privileges the knower in a self-serving way. A classic rightwing meme — Landru Guide Us
Yes, grains of sand are hard is also an expression only given when there are man and sand grain together — Agustino
That's exactly what you are arguing. What you are doing is specifying a universal meanings (e.g. hard and soft with sand, natural and unnatural with humans, etc.,etc.) and arguing it gives insight into the nature of individuals,that it describes what they are what they are meant to be telos). Given individuals, you are, of this universal meaning, which can be used to understand the significance and reaction of any individual in the given category. You argument is making the universal the property of the individual, such that talking about a universal (supposedly) gives the nature of an individual.I haven't argued that a natural tendency is a property of the individual mate. Quite the opposite if you read what I wrote properly. — Agustino
Just like white swans and black swans form the same group, even though we can say the natural tendency for swans is to be white. — Agustino
No, you are the one who has no argument, but insist you are right. What can I do? You insist you are right, so I tell you: perhaps, just like some people are myopic and cannot see at distance, so too you cannot understand these matters. That too is a fact, and it doesn't mean that they don't exist. — Agustino
No. There is no reference to what they are meant to be. You introduce a lot of asinine concepts that I do not agree with and that do not form any part of my worldview. You're persistently arguing with a strawman that only you see.,that it describes what they are what they are meant to be telos) — TheWillowOfDarkness
Ever touched the sand on a beach?The ones not in a pile are not soft. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No a natural tendency cannot be used to understand the significance and reaction of an individual. Not at all. Again - a strawman.Given individuals, you are, of this universal meaning, which can be used to understand the significance and reaction of any individual in the given category — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, another strawman. I never claimed the natural tendency belongs to the individual, but rather to man in general.You argument is making the universal the property of the individual, such that talking about a universal (supposedly) gives the nature of an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Justify how that is a naturalistic fallacy according to the definitions I have provided before. And no, please don't tell me that a natural tendency tells us about how some individual ought to be, because it doesn't - it only does that in your mind.This is the "naturalistic fallacy" I was talking about. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Ever touched the sand on a beach? — Agustino
Nope, another strawman. I never claimed the natural tendency belongs to the individual, but rather to man in general. — Agustino
And no, please don't tell me that a natural tendency tells us about how some individual ought to be, because it doesn't - it only does that in your mind. — Agustino
It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see i — Agustino
That's... in a pile, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Your position is that you can understand individuals through "man in general" (i.e. property of "man in general" is of individuals, such that universal of the "man in general" describe something about the individual). — TheWillowOfDarkness
The problem is sort of the reverse you suggest: you claim individuals belong to the universal, that individuals are of "man in general," when that is what individuals never are (as the are specific states). — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope - it's not this either. But had it been this, it would still not be a naturalistic fallacy.It runs deeper than that. What it suggests is that individuals only make sense if the are a certain way (of the "natural tendency" ). It is not a question of thinking what someone ought to be, but rather what it make sense for them to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No not at all. Natural tendency of humans in general doesn't mean that an individual human must be anything in particular...What you are concern about is having an understanding of the world which hold that humans, necessarily MUST be and ARE, something in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is a separate question. What I dislike about it is the fact that it attempts to universalise that there is no universal... a most radical self-contradiction, if there ever was one. Also what I dislike about it is that it fails to see that there are generalities and universals with regard to many things.What you hate about modern philosophy and culture is it holds there is no universal, there is no "general" which gives the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
That's not a state of freedom, it's a state of radical incoherency and self-contradiction. Also your statements about some "unsatisfying freedom" are the most crass delusion I've read in awhile.The "natural tendency" which you are so enamoured with is an attempt to get beyond this unsatisfying state of "freedom." — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. Just because something is natural does not mean it matters more or less than something unnatural. You're again imagining things.It is to say: "Well, this is natural/unnatural, so it matters." — TheWillowOfDarkness
Absolutely no relation between this "meaninglessness of the individual" and the universal "man in general". Meaning is always context specific, so a universal (ie, a context-less statement) cannot provide meaning. Furthermore, a natural tendency is a universal, but it is situated in the context of that which gives rise to it: evolution and the biological constraints placed on man and woman - thus it isn't a pure universal - it does have some context. If evolution were different, or the biological constraints placed on reproduction were different, the natural tendency would be different, but it would still be just as universal in terms of its applicability to humanity.The universal,"man in general," is used to fill the perceived meaningless of the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No - again, another one of your imaginations - the universal comes because it is rationally needed. Such explanations exist, and they do account for what happens in the world, just like gas laws account for the random distribution of gas molecules in a closed container.But the problem is you've made exactly the error you are trying to avoid. The "universal" only needs to come along to say how existence matters because you've believed the shallow argument in the first instance. In the face of "freedom," you've accepted that it tells the truth about the individual. You've failed to grasp how it is a junk argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, contrary to your nonsensical hypothesis, I actually do accept that individuals always have particular meanings (meaning is context-mediated). You fail to understand the purpose of the natural tendency, which is purely explanatory, and does not exist to create meaning.Instead pointing out that, contrary to what the "freedom" argument claims, individuals are always have some particular meaning, you've accepted the shallow modern argument gets us right, such that we need some extra "universal" to define how ourselves and world matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes - universals however have nothing to do with the world mattering. Aristotle and Plato didn't sit in their chairs one day being like "Oh this meaningless world... man must somehow be rescued from this terrible freedom, therefore we have to invent this concept of "universal" to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless world". No, that's not how it happened at all. I really do suggest you read the Physics and Metaphysics at least...No "universal" is required to rescue how the world matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Unfortunately, to my shame, I've only read a little of Aristotle and quite a bit about him. One of the few great philosophers who still has quite a few works I haven't read and whose insights I've started to appreciate lately, even though I didn't like him much at first :)You mean you've read Aristotle! That is such a rare scholarly achievement. I'll have to look up this Aristotle fellow. — Landru Guide Us
What do you think - should organisations promoting deceitfulness (think for example Ashley Madison which aims to be a dating website for people already in commited relationships, guaranteeing to keep the identity of their members secret) be outlawed, and people engaged in such activities punished by law? — Agustino
Your ISIS analogy fails because it facilitates crimes, whereas affairs are not crimes. Do you have any data support your claim that clandestine affairs cause more broken homes? It's conceivable that the homes get broken by the discovery of the affair, which would imply these sites are doing a service by making it easier to do them secretly.I argue the same is the case for websites like Ashley Madison. They too cause conflicts in society, broken families, which lead to long term poverty, problems with children and so on. Furthermore, they also encourage and applaud deceiving "Life is short. Have an affair". They make a virtue out of the social sin of oppressing and deceiving others. Thus such an organisation deserves not only to be outlawed - but treated exactly like ISIS - with all their associates and members tracked down and brought in front of the law to be judged for promoting and engaging in illegal activity (in this case, the illegal activity would be anti-social behaviour and fraud). But to allow them to continue to function - and not only this - but to make money out of such an activity - that is the most monstrous absurdity. — Agustino
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.