Yea. Whatever. I don't play the videos you post.

Perhaps the language of dignity is broader than the language of rights? — Cavacava

Absolutely. (Y)

My pronunciation has been officially checked off by numerous Russians and Russian speakers while playing the chicken/rooster game with grass stems. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a Mongolian over them.

Russian for chicken.

True.

Molecularism sort of evolves into holism, though. Maybe it's a little of each.

Cou-dit-sa

Do you lean more toward meaning holism or atomism?

You are asserting that 'rights' arise because of blatant violations of human justice men inflict on men. I like that. So then rights and the state arise from the same source, a need for protection. — Cavacava

I think the state was originally a side effect of temple building and agriculture. I don't know how hunter gatherers dealt with transgression. How did Native American groups deal with it? I know the Lakota didn't punish their children much. They believed it's normal for kids to be wild and screw up, but they'll come around eventually. Apaches threw rocks at their kids to make them tough. So who knows?

I think Banno's point is probably on target. There has to be a privileged class.

But don't you think that talking about rights (as if a right is an object) produces a sort of illusion? So that we then go looking for the birthplace of this object. Maybe the reality of it is more in the moment, and as you say, extends beyond morality. Talk of rights takes place amidst all the machinery of law and authority.

Yep.

:) In some versions the story starts with the people being grieved by the actions of their king, Gilgamesh. He has sex with all the women and he forces the men to work. We might say he was violating their rights. The people call out to the gods for help and they send create Enkidu as a solution. Enkidu, once he is introduced to civilization, sees the harsh actions of Gilgamesh and challenges him to fight.

The implication seems to be that exploitation accompanies city life. An injection of the wisdom of an untamed heart is the beginning of justice.

Do you suppose that because some did not consider blacks human that these people did not have the rights that we assign to all humans. — Cavacava

They had rights. In a lot of cases their rights were violated.

Could the Nazis take away the rights of the Jews, in principal? — Cavacava

Nazis could violate the rights of Jews.

I am looking for the concept of right, a priori. — Cavacava

Evocative statement. We look at definitions or the limits of imagination to find a priori knowledge. Can you imagine a human who effectively has no rights? Maybe a lone wildboy like Enkidu?

Enkidu would be an interesting angle on the basis of rights. Are you familiar with the epic of Gilgamesh?

Sure what you have itemized is the case but it does not speak to rights in their existential sense, what is essential to be human. — Cavacava

To "violate a right" is to commit a certain kind of transgression. But I think it's true that if black people, for instance, are not considered to be human, then they won't be beneficiaries of rights. So some expansion of the concept of humanity is part of the root of "human rights." Is that what you mean?

But other kinds of entities can have rights. Patients in a hospital have rights. A group of people can have to right to have a revolution. Right? :)

an you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? — rickyk95

Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint, by Jay Williams

A tool that can do this is in itself pretty awesome, it enables societies to function based on mutually agreed upon principles or laws. — Cavacava

I've been reading about ancient Sumeria. I think if we wanted to explain to them what rights are, we might tell them that one of their myths explains the king's right to rule. I don't know if they would understand what we mean, though.

The anti-relativism (or maybe moral superiority?) that's amply displayed in the UN's list of rights suggests to me that a certain characterization(s) of what is meant to be human ought to be included in our understanding of what a right is. — Cavacava

Imagine a society where the only individual is the king. Nobody else has rights. Then the aristocrats claim rights for themselves. Then the aristocracy dies out and it's mainly people with land or money who have rights. Then white men who have no money claim rights and that claim is upheld. Then black people claim rights. Then women do. Then handicapped people do. Then..

I think "human rights" is partly the product of a progression. But it some ways it goes back to the Roman conception of rights. Even a slave has a natural right to defy an evil government.

The concept of a right is a tool for addressing wrongdoing. It doesn't have much value beyond that.

You'll explain the basis of rights according to your theory of morality.

Did you ever read Young Man Luther by Erik Erikson?

Hmm...could be.

doesn't follow that another religion would emerge from that. — Agustino

Sure it does.

She can't invest her emotions in you. She reflexively closes off to protect herself. On top of that there's a hormonal issue with being 15. She's not responsible for her actions.

Impossible - very very unlikely. Why would you say that — Agustino

Christianity seems like fairy tales. A Christian church is a museum. It's so just that many haven't noticed that yet.

A new global religion will emerge sometime in this century and absorb both Islam and Christianity.

don't see the contradiction. Can you specify — TheMadFool

A bunch of pelicans just flew by in an orderly pattern. I'm off the coast. :)

I hope you're referring to the infinite regress problem because if you are I have to say that this counter-argument doesn't show up in the tidy room argument as in we never ask who created the someone who's the purveyor of the order in the room. So, why is this a problem for the argument from design? — TheMadFool

It's a problem because it requires that the person presenting the argument either

1. accepts that the argument implies a contradiction, or
2. provides some work-around for which no argument has been given, for example: God is eternal.

It's the proof of God that was presented to me in childhood. I noticed early on its weakness. Is God supposed to be an untidy, disorderly entity? If not, then who created him?

A related idea is that if we put a bunch of watch parts in a box and shake the box for eternity, who expects that we'd ever open the box and find a watch? The argument is relying on intuition about entropy. This angle explicitly rules out that God could be disorderly in nature.

Dickinson fan? I knew you were awesome!

Reminds me of Buckminster Fuller's 'less is more' which he called Ephemeralization:

the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing," that is, an accelerating increase in the efficiency of achieving the same or more output (products, services, information, etc.) while requiring less input (effort, time, resources, etc.).
Wiki

Almost like a pragmatic reinterpretation of Occam's Razor. — Cavacava

That's definitely happened in electronics. But if you look at the industry required to make or repair a windmill, for instance, steel and glass still require about the same amount of energy today as ever.

I'm not entirely sure of the context. In the case of living sustainable, I think that a smaller scale, and consumption of land and resources is always preferable, yes. — Wosret

Because of the size of the human population relative to available resources?

Cool. I think your position is probably around 90% hope. You aren't proposing long term solutions, but rather you stand for thinking about and investing in solutions.

I read small is beautiful a few years ago on Banno's recommendation. T'was good. — Wosret

But large is also beautiful. And sometimes it's not only the best way, it's the only way to get the job done. I'm not knockin' small stuff. It definitely has its place. Agree?

smh

You cite it, you show it. — Wayfarer

I think you misunderstood the intention of my post. It's just more leaked stuff; unconfirmed, but probably true (most of the leaked stuff has been true, I think.)

Look it up. :)

The FBI is supposed to be independent.

Sessions supposedly told Trump to fire Comey. I don't think Trump is the ring leader.

It's hard to ape a mechanical footprint because you just have ape feet. You know?

Life requires some extroversion. For a lot of my life, I've been half-consciously putting myself into a position where I have to be extroverted. But that's me. K had no intention of living a normal life. He knew he was amazing. He knew he would still be famous long after he was gone.

Kierkegaard, however, was quite clear. — TimeLine

You may be right. I have to admit that though I had Sickness Unto Death at my bedside for years, and both Fear and Trembling and Repetition both made permanent marks on me, I haven't really thought a whole lot about what actually happened between K and Regine. I partly don't think it's any of my business. :)

K claimed to be a very "inward" person, which I take to mean introverted (in the way Jung meant it, not the popular meaning of shyness). An extremely introverted person sometimes deals with representations of people more so than the real people themselves. It's a condition that can result in really bizarre behavior.

Did he ever arrive at the faith he would need to marry Regine? I think he might have wanted to find out if he could float in that water that is "70 fathoms deep." Obviously fate had other plans. My assessment: fate had the right idea. K would have made Regine's life cold and hollow.

We each are interpreting K by our own experiences. Our experiences vary, so we're having trouble understanding one another.

I figured. :)