I agreed that this syllogism was valid and then challenged its soundness by asserting that all human beings are deserving of compassion. That's where we are. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I can support my view that all human beings are deserving of compassion by asserting that all human beings are suffering creatures and all suffering creatures are deserving of compassion. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Suffering does not imply compassion. It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. Especially now if we're actually validating the syllogism by adding another factor besides mental illness. Plus, many, many people suffer because they cause they're own suffering. — Garrett Travers
It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. — Garrett Travers
To which I would say:
It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Not only does suffering not imply compassion, but compassion moves further away as an application as more variables are incorporated. — Garrett Travers
These variables are your own, and not my variables.
Yes, it's true, as you incorporate more variables you move further and further away from feeling compassion for all suffering creatures.
The only variable in my position is the question of suffering. — ZzzoneiroCosm
If multiple factors for applying compassion exist, — Garrett Travers
I get that. And it's IRRATIONAL. — Garrett Travers
In the case of a person like you, multiple variables are incorporated. (It's too strong to say they exist, because to my view they don't exist as variables.) — ZzzoneiroCosm
Right. So, Putin, Jeff Bezos, and Brionna Taylor. No differentiating factors of compassion application? — Garrett Travers
Right. All are suffering creatures. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Do humans deserve to be free from the application of force at all times? — Garrett Travers
I'm incredibly familiar with him, he's among my favorites. — Garrett Travers
Have you read Man's Search for Meaning? Lots of wisdom in there, if you have a love of wisdom. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Unbelievable. I have no words. — Garrett Travers
Yep, love the guy. — Garrett Travers
Maybe you need to define force. But to my view, arresting and incarcerating a criminal is an application of force. — ZzzoneiroCosm
So while I feel compassion for the criminal as a suffering creature, I would insist he be removed from polite society for obvious reasons. — ZzzoneiroCosm
What do you take to be the central thesis of the book?
It might be interesting to look at how the book is received by two very different personalities. If you're interested, I'll start a thread on it. Might start one anyway. — ZzzoneiroCosm
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — Hitchen's Razor
Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. — Ibn Sina
An exemplary self-refuting statement. :roll:... all objective truths are subjective
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. — Humpty Dumpty
. all objective truths are subjective
An exemplary self-refuting statement — 180 Proof
Objectivity denotes subjectivity / point-of-view/ language / gauge–invarant statements (e.g. "2+2=4" or "At sea-level, water boils @ 212° F (100° C)" ... irregardless of anyone's "subjective beliefs, etc") Whether or not such subjectivity-invariant statements are determined to be true or not true is a matter of experimental or ostensible testing against relevant evidence (facts). When you say, Eugene, in effect that "objective = subjective" you are asserting a contradiction (i.e. necessary falsehood) and therefore spouting nonsense.Peoplewantobjectivity. Even if itssubjective. — EugeneW
The term "objective reality" is, on one hand, redundant and, on the other hand, an unwarranted conflation of epistemology (maps) and ontology (territory). There are many ways to talk about the world. There are many worlds in the universe. There is 'possibly' many universes in the vacuum. Even many vacua ... That is aspect-pluralism (e.g. irrealism ~ N. Goodman), however, not "relativism".objective reality? — EugeneW
You say that we are our brains. We have no awareness of the neural processes going on in our brains which determine all our thoughts. words and actions. It seems to follow from this deterministic view that we are no more morally responsible for any of our actions than the tiger, the lightning or the tsunami is for theirs. — Janus
So, on the physicalist assumption of determinism there is no rational justification for punishing (as opposed to restraining) anyone. whether mentally ill or not, for their actions, any more than there is rational justification for wanting to punish the tiger for killing your family. — Janus
But, no. Human's generate new conceptualizations of their own behavior in accordance with data that is acrrued in a recurrent manner at almost all times. — Garrett Travers
I will say, though, I made no argument for punishing anyone. I made an argument for selective distribution of compassion, — Garrett Travers
When you say, Eugene, in effect that "objective = subjective" you are asserting a contradiction (i.e. necessary falsehood) and therefore spouting nonsense. — 180 Proof
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.