Ted Hoffman

The eternal flux hapening via replacement and via monism, through a unity of opposites that are in a struggle with one another simply shows the universe is dynamic, NOT chaotic.
The net energy in the universe remains zero.
Unless you want to talk about the wave function and its collapse. As far as Heraraclitean theory goes, it demonstrates that the universe is dynamic (please correct me if I am wrong.
Non-probabilistic or non-deterministic systems (as in the collapse of the wave function) are not necessarily chaotic.
Rational? Is gravity rational?
How does rationality come in (I mean how is it relevant?)? I would think that even if gravity worked horizontally, it would be non-chaotic so long as it was consistent. Consistency helps in bringing about order.
Contingencies and consistency create order. They are what make a dynamic system keep from being chaotic.
It neither needs to be final, nor to be fixed for the universe to be orderly.
It's all that we have. You have a better "means" of understanding the universe that by perception?
Your point please?
It is reasonable to think its very unlikely, even well nigh impossible. It has not happened in human experience.
The sun will rise tomorrow cannot be a lie because it has not happened. And the speaker has no power over whether the event takes place or not. Its not a matter of truth and falsehood :its a matter of being correct or being wrong.
It is correct because the sun WILL rise tomorrow.
Right. And it has been done, however imperfect our seismologists instruments may be.
Limited because we live in an orderly universe.
I would call it human potential. I think we should leave rationality out when we are considering natural phenomena. Its like looking at a mountain and asking "Is it rational to have a mountain?"
But the dinosaurs were killed off werent they?
The "If" in your statement above would be eliminated if the universe was chaotic. But we know that in our universe, every action has a consequence.
Purpose of what? Or do you mean order?
Nature does not have to pander to what fits in our framework of purpose now does it?
The astronomer can tell you it is very unlikely that a life-threatening asteroid or comet will cannonball into the ocean in the near future. In the distant future, anything can happen. Time-frame is important because of the eternal flux.
Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. Quantum cosmological models show a universe that starts from a chaotic state as it progresses to less chaotic natures.
Scientific laws are predicated and rely on a predictable universe with consistently acting forces - thats why we have constants in physics. Experiments would be unnecessary if we got different results each time. Order may be an aesthetic expression but it is also a scientific concept.
(why do I have a feeling that you are mistaking order for beauty?)
I believe what man values is irrelevant to this discussion. We should focus on what is observable, not on what gets marginalised or not.
Are you saying that mankind would read order even from a chaotic universe?
I agree. Your point being we should not rely on what stems from our experience?
Non-predictability (or randomness) does not mean chaos. This is the anthropocentric standpoint I mentioned earlier. How do you know I was not born in the distant past or that I will not be born in the unknown future?
It was a philosophical question. We dont have to have every answer in our list of questions for the universe to be non-chaotic.
So you did not mean to say instincts DO NOT exist?
(you explained why you said what you said instead of answering my question - I am trying to ascertain where you stand)
So the genius does not need the herd right? In a norman evolutionary environment, does the survival of a species depend on an individual or on the "roup"?
So now the herd represents mediocrity - is that your position?
Please explain how chaos brings forth creativity and what is wrong with something old. Does its antiquity translate to its insignificance?
And this is bad?
No, my utopia is a society where as many people as possible enjoy a high standard of life and freedom.
My parameters for evaluating the strength or weakness of rights would be how they improve the standard of life of the individuals in the society. Period.

That sounds like a description of my Utopia?
I found "zealous belief in equality" to be a bit different from "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."
and I also found "zealous belief in equality" to be too narrow a description for liberals.
Food (and water), Shelter and sex(or social needs), freedom, security etc.
After that its a can of worms.
I was talking about basic human needs.

Ted Hoffman

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ender

Intensity
How do you like our hijack of this thread? We have gone so far off topic from "rights" that I can see Jimmy Hoffa!

This disagreement comes from how we define chaos or chaotic. I define chaos as a state of permanent changing state of affairs.

Quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive, i.e. counter to common sense, which is a source of our belief in order. What we see as regularity at our level of existence is actually a ceaseless, destructive collision of atomic particles.

Rationalism, order, and mathematics are all closely related.


The fact that we gravitate towards consistency, is no argument for an intrinsic order in the universe.

Laws or contingencies do not "keep" a system from being chaotic. They are merely human anthropomorphisms, descriptions of regularities in such state of affairs.

Which is what happens when you break a sentence out of its context and assume every single one is a stand-alone premise in an argument for "chaos."


I have much less blind faith in our perspective as an objective illustration of reality. I do not elevate empiricism to an ontological status of existence.

In a nutshell: perspectivism denies that an objective view of reality is possible.

Probably not, but that is no guarantee that it will never happen in the future. In addition, it will not even require a planet to wipe out life on this planet. The fossil record reflects that potentiality.

Let's try this again. The proposition "the sun will rise tomorrow" is as coherent as its contrary: "the sun will not rise tomorrow." One has the weight of human experience in support and the other sounds like the ravings of a mad lunatic. But they both are statements of matter of facts. There is no necessity that any particular sensory data will follow any other sensory data. The contrary of what usually occurs in experience or observed constant conjunction is always possible. How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? There is no necessary causal law that guarantees it. It is just as intelligible and without any logical contradiction to state that "the sun will not rise tomorrow." There is no more logical necessity for one than the other. Therefore, we can never know a fact must be so or that a fact must be necessary. Your attempt at dividing truth and falsehood from "correct or wrong" doesn't hold any water.

So you're blaming the deficiencies instruments instead of our omnipotent understanding of nature?

It's poor manners to break up sentences into fragments and responding. Almost a blueprint of how-to-create-a-strawman-ASAP, don't you agree? Boultbee's criterion totally applies here: If the converse of the statement is absurd (if our experience is limited, then we live in an orderly universe) then the original statement (if we live in an orderly universe, our experience is limited) is an insult to the intelligence and should have never been said!
Then you see why I rule out "order" as an accurate description of natural phenomena- if there is no "rationality" within natural phenomena. Since I associate order with mathematics and logic, anything that appears "rational" to us is merely a matter of fact or common sense.
Why would a possible scenario of dinosaurian civilization be "chaotic?"

Incorrect. That's not so in quantum mechanics. Not every action has a consequence. That is 17th century Newtonian physics. Get on with the program!

Correct. Nature is simply is. Order is a matter of aesthetics derived from human psychology.

Could you elaborate on "quantum cosmological models?" From what I understand, the anti-gravitational force (dark force) is increasing over time and is accelerating the expansion of the universe. That there is insufficient matter to halt this expansion results in an utterly bleak picture: proton decay. Good thing that won't come along for billions and billions of years.


True- but when the evidence contradicts the suppositions of science, what happens? The picture of description changes in order to maintain a coherent orderly representation of reality. This is the precise presupposition of science- that there is an external world and its' regularities are a matter of mathematical formulas. I have no argument with science but with its accumulation of metaphysical monsters- what is actually a mathematical formula in physics are called "laws" in layman's terms.


Man values order for his sustained existence. True or false? Then you have sufficient grounds for an inquiry in man's environment. Then you have the origins of science.

Correct! It is in man's nature to project order onto chaos and derive "laws" from regularities. Remember, I do not subscribe to the primitive picture of empiricism where the mind is a blank slate, or an empty cupboard, or a passive receptor of external reality.

My point is that reason (common sense) or rationalism (logic, mathematics) are human enterprises. Yes, reason is human in origin. The source of man's knowledge is non-rational or 'pre-rational' – provided that Reason is the human consciousness' perception of organizations and relations which the "brute fact" of the universe sustains. I include "irrational" among the data of a possible philosophy of reason, and recognize man's irrational behavior as an important part of humanity. This is why I regard theu niverse as being fundamentally without purpose and w/o any rational organization, besides what man posits into it.

More negative definition of chaos. Why doesn't non-predictability or randomness indicate chaos? As for the question of birth- let me retract that and state that since I am unable to remember what took place before I was born, supposing that I will not remember anything beyond my death is a safe conjecture. (I identify memory with personal identity)
You asked for evidence of the universe being chaotic, remember? Wittgenstein once said "when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this is the answer." Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 6.52
If you re-read my earlier assertions, clearly I am denying that there is a "universal" instinct in the universe- to deny that there is an "intrinsic order" in the universe.

The survival of a species depends upon sustenance. The genius improves either the sustenance or the method of dependence. The former is a passive, slow, natural means of life, while the latter is an active leap of will to power. A people is a detour of nature to get to six or seven great men. Yes: and then to get round them." Beyond Good and Evil 126

There's no other position. The herd is mediocre, average, normal, and it's the true end of all democratic or egalitarian systems. When you lump everyone into a melting pool, the best qualities and the worst qualities mix and result in the mediocre.

One way to be creative is forgetfulness- The reason why most men fail at original thinking is because their memory is too good. Anything old wasn't always old- its origins were merely forgotten.

That is the primal human fear- the unknown, the different, the new, the odd, the strange. In the future, please do not snip out sentences from their context.

How different is this from your earlier statement: " I would say it depends on how those rights improve the standard of life of the individuals in the society. The more parochial(serving the interests of a few as opposed to(or at the expense of) the majority) the rights, the weaker and less intelligent I would consider them." Is this or is this not your picture of utopia? Most subscribers to a political theory deny that they hold an ideological viewpoint.

Sho' nuff.

if the shoe fits…

Social needs, freedom, security are all vague ambiguous words that aren't concrete realities. Any means of evaluating these vacuous concepts are predicated by a "value system."

~WiGGiN~
(((UBB graemlins))))

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Ender

I don't know how I missed your post. Here goes nothing.
Then does the word "merit" have any cash-value whatsoever in your vocabulary?
Like a good determinist, you presume that "genetic inheritance" is the be-all and end all for evaluating merit. There are other factors that comes in play you've chosen to ignore.
Outline exactly how I misunderstood and I'll be too happy to play along.
Ergo the lowest common denominator.
Actually they are examples of how individuals differ on how they value life. The family man evaluates his family's survival as the most important thing and sets out to shape his entire life around that datum, while the scientist, bereft of a family, will devote his energies to his research. A common hierarchy of need will only cater to a certain kind of people whose needs fall conveniently in line with the invented supposition.
Yes, I'm positively certain a single person like you has the license to hide behind a mask of objectivity and determine what the universal needs of man are. Whatever you decide stems from your subjectivity, your developed value system, your existential decisions on what goes and what doesn't. Your representation of humanity as a whole is as valid as the porn starlet's. Not that I am denying that everybody needs to eat, but institutionalizing food for everybody is an liberal's wet dream.
Just what does Kantian collectivist thinking mean to you? Political rights come from a foundation of morals, which comes from human sentimentality. Basic rights are largely an invention of modern society. They weren't in place in the agriculture societies in the past, but humanity fared pretty well then. Not that I am advocating a return to outdated societies, but that "inalienable rights" aren't so "inalienable" but invoked by whoever is in power, especially when it is in their interests to do so.
Of course, it is right. Actually I am suggesting that capitalism as the law of jungle is, and has always been a fact of life in the United States. Whoever succeeds in exploiting the system deserves its rewards. What do I care for the trailer park inhabitants or the rich blokes? I have no such artificial "love for humanity at all costs." As for merit, would someone live in a trailer park if he had sufficient merit? Nope! Hobbes was right in stating that man's nature was solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.
Define a "high standard of living."
You presume I equate geniuses with the rich. Stuff that strawman and cease mistaking me for a blind conservative.

~WiGGiN~

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

FredJ_UK

Aren't rights simply the converse (yin/yang) of responsibilities? I think I have a responsibility to treat people as I would like them to treat me. If a number of people concur, as a society, with this view, then the consequence is that an individual in the society has the "right" conferred upon him/her by that society to expect such treatment?

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: FredJ_UK ]</p>

Ender

Beautiful article that echoes my skepticism of abstract entities bandied about in this thread (read: "basic rights") : <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/massimo_pigliucci/column/rationallyspeaking/october2000.html" target="_blank">Whence Natural Rights?</a>

~WiGGiN~

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Ender,

First of all, this is why you might have misunderstood me, with regard to your comment:
"Like a good determinist, you presume that "genetic inheritance" is the be-all and end all for evaluating merit" I'll try and outline why below.

"If he thought that a designer baby should not get credit for whatever his altered genetic structure allowed, then why would a person, by the luck of draw of good genetic material (parents) deserve merit"
I don't think either deserve merit more than each other."

The point I'm making here relates to your point about the injustice of equal rights:

"I have merely been trying to ascertain what is involved in suggesting that there is injustice in the concept of equal rights, and asking why the differences between human beings can form the basis for allowing differences in rights." AS

You talked in an earlier post about the fact that people weren't equally endowed, specifically with regard to strength and intelligence. I wanted to know what on earth that had to do with rights. Were you suggesting that rights would vary according to these genetic predispositions.

My comment therefore regarding how a genetically enhanced person and one who isn't enhanced was that neither's achievements could be predicated on that basis alone with regard to merit, and if we were to merit someone on the basis of genetic inheritance alone, would we not merit someone without genetic enhancements more than someone with, because of the greater will required to achieve a parity in a certain test of, for example, strength or intelligence. I'm saying the opposite of what you think I am, that merit goes according to what one does, not what one is.

However, I do not understand why equal rights is an unjust concept simply because people are different. The closest explanation I got was this:

"You and I and all of us already have a value system that evaluates the abilities or differences in human beings. You may gravitate towards a characteristic and I, another. This is the awesome responsibility we all overlook everyday in our lives, that we judge who is worthy of our time and who isn't, everything comes from our sentiments and moral prejudices. In fact, pooling our various prejudices will be germane only to the lowest common denominator- the herd"

To which I responded with:
"While we do tend to group with people and not others according to sentiments and moral prejudices, can this be made to work as a society wide set of rules governing the ascription of rights all individuals can or can't have."

So, is it possible to outline a coherent society wide system that can categorise who gets a right to education or free speech. Only if giving these rights equally is unjust I'd like to know why.


"Yes, I'm positively certain a single person like you has the license to hide behind a mask of objectivity and determine what the universal needs of man are. "

This seems unwarranted given the quote where I said it was possible for a society to determine what its basic needs were. You still do not deny that the need to eat, and perhaps the need to shelter too are basic universal needs. I'd have thought a conservative like you would want to limit society's impingement on its members to such basic things only.

"Whatever you decide stems from your subjectivity, your developed value system, your existential decisions on what goes and what doesn't. Your representation of humanity as a whole is as valid as the porn starlet's"

Unless I agree with a large group of other people on the issues, in which case its intersubjective agreement. I also can adapt my subjective views with regard to who I vote for so that someone can govern the society I live in. I would also question why it isn't possible to be able to find a representation of humanity that isn't more cogent and well thought out than a porn starlet's, given the presumption that the term is derogatory.

"institutionalizing food for everybody is an liberal's wet dream"

Or an actuality in most western states with social security. Give a person the basics, free speech, an education, healthcare, social security, and from that basis he or she can participate in society, and use their drive and initiative to achieve whatever they want. If they do not have shelter or food then they are in a very Hobbesian situation indeed.

"Basic rights are largely an invention of modern society"

I agree, but I am not talking about natural rights, or inalienable rights, I'm talking about rights that apply equally to all people, as defined by the members of any given society. You said that equal rights were unjust, I wanted to know why. I used first the right to life, then retracted it for the right to an education and free speech, both not universal rights, not inalienable, but both held to apply equally to all members of a society that holds that they apply equally. Again, you called such rights, unjust, in relation to those two rights, I'd like to know how, and why, if they shouldn't apply equally, in what way they shouldn't.

"As for merit, would someone live in a trailer park if he had sufficient merit? Nope! "

Depends on how you define merit.

Hobbes said that man in a state of nature had a life that was nasty brutish and short, not man's nature itself.

High standard of living? Access to good quality healthcare, clean running water, low crime rates, good public transport, job opportunities, education to high levels of literacy and numeracy. Then, in tandem with this, an average income that allows a family holidays, a tv, a computer, perhaps a car, a home with electricity and gas and sanitation and hot water.

There are higher standards of living of course, but across a society, the more people that have this and the less people that don't have all this, the higher the average standard of living. I'm suggesting that while the US has members of the population that are far richer, the average standard of living is still high in societies with strong social security and welfare states.

"You presume I equate geniuses with the rich"

Where did I presume that? The comment you quote asks whether you thought socially responsible societies, like Germany and the UK, with their higher state involvement in securing basic needs had a lower standard of living than the US, given your comment:

"You're worried about the worst off while neglecting the best off. Your ideal of government is one that includes everyone, and lowers the living standard."

Adrian

Ted Hoffman

Ender
I love it! the guy who started the threat wanted to be a passive observer anyway so what the heck.
Dynamic: Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress:
Chaos: A condition or place of great disorder or confusion. lacking a visible order or organization
Why do you find it necessary to use the word chaos in a dynamic system.
For something to be considered chaotic, you need to demonstrate that:
1. It lacks any visible order or organization
2. It characterized with a lot of confusion

If the arrangement of the planets is anything to go by, the universe is NOT chaotic.

Alternatively, if continuous change equals chaotic, how do you define dynamic?
Which dictionary or books are you using? Because if its based on Edward Lozenz's model of atmospheric currents, the chaos observed was based solely on the lack of accuracy for the initial conditions. Thus the model was flawed.
Does that undermine the credibility of what is observed in QM?
I agree, but that does not make our universe chaotic. Still dynamic.
We are not evaluating the rationality for the existence of phenomena or the activities of cosmic bodies.
Thus rationality of forces or bodies remains irrelevant to our discussion.
So you admit that we are gravitating toward consistency? This is good.
The nature of order is consistency. You cannot have order without consistency. If we have order, we have consistency.
Consistency: Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform.
Humans did not create gravity. They observed it. You cant call gravity a human affair. It affects planetary bodies too.
What did you mean to illustrate when you said "Most of our knowledge of reality stems from a rational picture, one that we have created over time, yet it is neither final nor is it fixed". I simply put it in the context of our discussion and refuted it. You implied that our knowledge comes from a rationalised but limited temporal experience - thus does not objectively reflect the nature of the universe.
You can do better than make casual dismissals.
If you feel I have quoted you out of context, just say so and I will correct it.
And how does one acquire this so-called objective view - how do we even know it exists? Who gets to decide that it is objective?
Even if an objective view did not existed, it would have to encompass the subjective views. Because its a view that is fully-informed. Objective views do not have to conflict with the subjective views, they just supplement the subjective views. There is absolutely no basis for saying "perspectivism denies that an objective view of reality is possible".
Unless you care to elaborate.
True, it could be some damned volcano. That still does not illustrate that the universe is chaotic. Car accidents happen leaking fuel, burst tyres etc. Does that mean that the automobile system is chaotic? Just that its not perfect nor of static nature.
The probability that the sun will rise tomorrow is 99.9999999/100 BECAUSE, the things that can make the sun not rise (like the earth stopping to rotate on its axis) or the sun flying out of the solar system or simply dying out, are 0.111111/100 likely.
The claim that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on past experience - that the sun rises every 24 hours or so. We dont need to sign a contract with the sun for that to happen. Just like when I drop a glass from a great heigh on a hard surface, it will break.
We can use percentages of likelihood and probability to gauge the rationality of such statements. "Fact" is a misnomer when analysing the probability of events that are yet to take place.
Yes it does, plenty of water. Because falsehood(lying) involves a deliberate intentional assertion of what is known to be untrue. When I say the sun will rise tomorrow, no one knows what the truth is (including me) so I can't be lying unless I know the truth. I would simply be making a statement of belief.
Absolutely
Since when does breaking up sentences constitute creating a strawman? You can either accuse me of creating a strawman, quoting you out of context, making it difficult for you to remember what you were thinking when you were saying something or shutting up about the matter.
You have accused me of none so I dont see anything wrong with cutting out what I find irrelevant.
Its a non-issue. You are just nit-picking.
This would be true. I withdraw my statement.
Which brings takes us back to what you said earlier:
Where is the evidence that "Our limited experience of regularities is that- limited?"
Limited compared to what? On what basis do you judge it to be limited?
Something that is ordered does not have to be rational. So whether the order is rational or not is irrelevant. Fertilization is ordered but is it rational?
That is why you need to demonstrate that the universe is chaotic. Because the matter of whether something is ordered or chaotic is a factual question and can't be dismissed as a matter of opinion.
Because in general gravity is decreasing thus the "pertubations" between planetary objects, colissions between planets etc. Radical weather changes (which are claimed to have cleared the dinosaurs) are less likely to occur as planets move apart from each other(planets can affect weather systems in "affected" planets).
Check <a href="http://www.rostra.dk/louis/styr.html?nf=quant_02.htm&titel=Physical%20Consequ ences%20of%20Decreasing%20Gravity&fra=http://www.rostra.dk/louis/" target="_blank">This link</a>

Gotta run, will continue later

Ender

Read this slowly, three times in succession: "All concepts of equal rights stems from, at least covertly, the image of a perfect God. Any other appeals to subjective values only cater to certain human interests. Democracy leads to mediocrity or leveling of human possibility."

Yes, that was addressed to Intensity, who rushed to your defense. I notice you are avoiding my accusation of violating the "ethics of words" In case you missed it the first time around: Does the word "merit" have any meaning in your vocabulary at all?

Aren't you being conveniently oblivious to the fact that intelligence isn't entirely predisposed by genes? That it is actually a social affair, an aspect of intersubjective relation with others? If genes determine everything, why aren't our models for predicting human behavior good? Why aren't the so-called "soft" sciences (psychology, sociology, politics, et. al) as rigorous as the hard sciences? I see determinism as a case of thinking backwards, or Monday morning-quarterbacking tactics elevated to the level of puerile academic snobbery. Doesn't passion or will factor anywhere in your all-too-typical faith in causality?

The whole "genetic predispositions" vaudeville act is a little strawperson of your own creation, and is an obvious ploy at denying that there is merit to be had for whatever an individual accomplishes.

Looks like you are blithely confusing potentiality (genetic predispositions) with actuality (what separates great men from the herd – persistence, swim-against-the-current thinking, et. al.)? A genetically engineered football player may be capable of toasting a overmatched cornerback, but will he have the inherent "subjective" desire to go over the middle and absorb nasty shots from unforgiving linebackers? And hang onto the ball? There is much about the human willpower that isn't privy to empirical science.

of course, the symptoms of herd mentality shines through. When you claim universality, you are catering only to a specific kind of people. Since truth or morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective; the fault lies with kantists, Christians, rationalistic moralists, democrats, or socialists who subscribe to some sort of universal generalization of man.


It is naïve to believe that a single perspective of a "wide set of rules governing the ascription of rights all individuals" transcends or trumps another. Karl popper once said that whoever promised heaven on earth has only delivered hell.

Yes it's always possible for a society to find similar needs of its people. The basic needs of society does not lie in catering to the lowest common denominator- but in efficiently achieve the end of man- his successor. Whatever that is, technology, artificial lifeforms, bioengineered Ubermensch is open to question.

Again, by hanging on to your fossilized convictions, you're missing the point.

I am of the opinion that the values of democracy, socialism, and human rights are derived from the Judeo-Christian ethics. Since Christianity taught love of the neighbor, especially the weak and the poor, democracy means awarding equal voice to the weak and the powerful. Socialism includes equal share to the dependent and the productive, while human rights implies that everyone was equal in moral worth and dignity. Most people, especially those of the herd, feel they have nothing if equality is not installed- so without the institution of equal rights, they feel they are nothing. Therefore they feel obligated to respect other people's rights. This is agonizingly inhibiting as well as repressive. If you understood Kant and his morality, you'd understand why I oppose such leveling down of humanity, of such debilitating pressure to be "duty-bound".

As for that conservative remark: newsflash chico- the world is not black and white- there are more ideologies than simply conservative and liberal. So put away that broad brush!

Herd mentality. What is good for the whole isn't necessarily the best decision. Would you poll the herd on what to do with a strange disease as opposed to going straight to a specialist?

I wonder if you've read Hobbes. Your optimism in a big government is ahistorical. Indulge me on why Marxism has utterly failed.

It presumes everybody fits into a cookie cutter, that man has an essential nature, and caters to the lowest common denominator. There is no universal, objective view of man, since God is dead. It would work if there was a god, though.

Not everyone has equal abilitites or skill. Reducing the genius, producer, inventor, creator to a level with the mentally challenged, and consumer is a crime against the future of humanity. There is a reason why this country isn't truly democratic

With this worm's eye view, you are superficially correct. However, Hobbes was no dualist- he was an out-and-out materialist. By indicating man in a state of nature, that meant man in a natural environment, not an artificial one of society. man pursues survival at the expense of others, in a war against all. Good and evil are whatever man envision of them. Selfishness is exceedingly important, which is why they follow the natural law. Once Man recognizes that war versus all is anarchy the begin to reduce their rights. That is why Hobbes instituted an artificial "leviathan" of individuals, a social contract.

Typical socialist tripe. I can see that You desire to create a comfortable life for as many as possible. However, this comfortable life would destroy the ingredients in which great intellect and powerful individuals emerge from. If this utopia is achieved, man will become enfeebled and be unable to birth geniuses. This is why I am demanding that a society should have room for a violent character and inimical forces. Your warm sympathizing heart desires to get rid of that destructive and savage attribute of life, and consequently will nip such genesis for great people in the bud. That is why I don't think a warm heart and a cold intellect is ever found hand-in-hand.

I'm certain the US is greatly concerned about its poor showing on the humanitarian score card.

Ah I retract that off-the-cuff remark. These socially responsible societies are that- socially responsible societies. Whether they are superior to a purely capitalistic country is another question and is predicated upon one's subjective value system.

I suspect America has been disingenuous for the longest of times- it is actually an aristocracy that calls itself a republic in modern political terminology.

~Speaker 4 the death of god~

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Ender,

"Read this slowly, three times in succession: "All concepts of equal rights stems from, at least covertly, the image of a perfect God. Any other appeals to subjective values only cater to certain human interests. Democracy leads to mediocrity or leveling of human possibility." "

Why, is it true? I do not see how a society that decides everyone should have the right to free speech is covertly asserting something about the image of a perfect God. I don't disagree that other appeals to subjective values caters to human interests. You assert that democracy leads to mediocrity, but don't offer an alternative, but of course, this assertion can be questioned. Democracies exist in most European countries and the US and with regard to human possibility, well, I suppose we'd have to define it. If part of that definition is, for example, high technology, well, I don't see how democracy at all hinders that. If anything, it provides a stable societal platform for the pursuit of the finer things in life, such as art and science.

"Does the word "merit" have any meaning in your vocabulary at all? "

"merit goes according to what one does, not what one is." (from my last post)

"Aren't you being conveniently oblivious to the fact that intelligence isn't entirely predisposed by genes? "

No. Where in anything I said was the idea that intelligence and strength entirely predisposed by genes, without that being an interpretation of comments you were making, as opposed to an outright assertion by myself?

"Doesn't passion or will factor anywhere in your all-too-typical faith in causality?"

Yes, but as passion or will are neural events, they would. You are painting a caricature.

"The whole "genetic predispositions" vaudeville act is a little strawperson of your own creation, and is an obvious ploy at denying that there is merit to be had for whatever an individual accomplishes."

Not true, as the quote you use after it testifies where I say precisely, and in total disagreement with the above assertion
"that merit goes according to what one does, not what one is".

Which renders this comment completely facile as it shows a now absurd misunderstanding of my position.

"A genetically engineered football player may be capable of toasting a overmatched cornerback, but will he have the inherent "subjective" desire to go over the middle and absorb nasty shots from unforgiving linebackers? And hang onto the ball"

Let me spell it out for you.
"would we not merit someone without genetic enhancements more than someone with, because of the greater will required to achieve a parity in a certain test of, for example, strength or intelligence" (from my last post) Using your American football example I am in agreement with you.

"However, I do not understand why equal rights is an unjust concept simply because people are different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of course, the symptoms of herd mentality shines through. When you claim universality, you are catering only to a specific kind of people. Since truth or morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective; the fault lies with kantists, Christians, rationalistic moralists, democrats, or socialists who subscribe to some sort of universal generalization of man"

Lets try this again. The right to free speech is held in some societies to be an equal right. You said, a while back now, that equal rights were unjust. With reference to the right to free speech being equal, could you please tell me how such a right is unjust. And, ideally, furnish me with examples of how because someone is different to someone else, that forms the basis for ascribing the right to free speech differently?

"It is naïve to believe that a single perspective of a "wide set of rules governing the ascription of rights all individuals" transcends or trumps another."

I'm sure it is. However, does that make a wide set of rules unjust. Unjust in what way? You said that equal rights were unjust, if they are the wide set of rules you're referring to, then how are they unjust? I refer you to the above question.

"The basic needs of society does not lie in catering to the lowest common denominator- but in efficiently achieve the end of man- his successor. "

Without first having shelter, and food etc. the search for the 'successor' cannot take off. Which need then is more basic? While a society ensures that its citizens can eat and have shelter, that does not mean that it then somehow stops them from the search for the successor. No-one is doing any noble pursuit of the fine points of human achievement without a bed to sleep on and food in their stomach. Perhaps democracies realise this, and ensure that by providing these things, someone with genius will be able to fulfil their potential. I agree that society must support that, the methods to do that are probably another topic entirely.

"As for that conservative remark: newsflash chico- the world is not black and white- there are more ideologies than simply conservative and liberal. So put away that broad brush!"

You don't say. I just thought that it was ok to be half assed in one's assessments of the other person's political position.

"Herd mentality. What is good for the whole isn't necessarily the best decision. Would you poll the herd on what to do with a strange disease as opposed to going straight to a specialist? "

What is good for the few isn't necessarily the best decision either. Big deal.

"You said that equal rights were unjust, I wanted to know why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It presumes everybody fits into a cookie cutter, that man has an essential nature, and caters to the lowest common denominator."

OK, so, with reference to the right to education and free speech, you're saying that it is unjust for these to apply to everyone because it presumes everyone must want free speech and an education, and it is an injustice to give everyone those rights equally?

"Not everyone has equal abilitites or skill. Reducing the genius, producer, inventor, creator to a level with the mentally challenged, and consumer is a crime against the future of humanity. There is a reason why this country isn't truly democratic "

So because not everyone has equal abilities or skill, an equal right to education will reduce the genius inventor etc. to the same level as the mentally challenged? Who said they had to sit in the same classroom? That is a most broad brush analysis. Crime against humanity is colourful. I suppose its not a crime against humanity to deny everyone free speech on the grounds its unjust? I would say a single homeless person is some tiny crime against humanity, but perhaps I'm a woolly soft neo-christian liberal and you're a hardnosed sensible conservative!?!?

"I can see that You desire to create a comfortable life for as many as possible. However, this comfortable life would destroy the ingredients in which great intellect and powerful individuals emerge from"

This isn't a utopia, this is pretty much the average in the UK. Socialist tripe is a facile insult, but its one of many, such as worms eye view that you seem to see fit to mix into your comments. Also, the fact that you label something as socialist tripe merely displays your inherent hatred of socialism, not its lack of worth. Again, the living standard I outlined is typical of developed countries in Europe, that have strong welfare states.

What makes your criticism all the more amusing is that the UK has had its fair share of inventions, and does produce academics and businessmen that are as good as any in the world, that includes artists, scientists and musicians too. I can't see how you think our society doesn't produce genius.

"Your warm sympathizing heart desires to get rid of that destructive and savage attribute of life, and consequently will nip such genesis for great people in the bud. "

You don't understand people do you. And besides, the facilities outlined for my definition of a high standard of living are an average, and also, don't to me strip away this savage whatever it is that you think commonly drives everyone who's become a genius. I didn't realise that not having running water and some heating would make a savage genius? I would be surprised if adversity and savagery defined every genius there ever was. I'd also be surprised if you thought that having a standard of living higher than that enjoyed by many American citizens precludes genius spawning.

"That is why I don't think a warm heart and a cold intellect is ever found hand-in-hand"

I have both

Adrian