The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

clark · 2002-07-02 13:10:59

Clark: "If your arm is detached from your body, does it have all the rights the rest of your body have?"
*Yes, I think it does.

If your arm has the same rights, shouldn't we ascertain what IT would like? Does our blood have the same rights? Should we walk gingerly around some blood spilled on the floor lest we offend some right? What about those who sell their hair, wouldn't that be tantamount to slavery under this absurd logic? You are in effect selling part of your being in perputity. What about those who sell their eggs, isn't that a better example of slavery as well.

You are smarter than this Cindy, I have to believe that you see the inherent weakness of the stance you are taking.

*The body should be treated/handled as the living person who once inhabited so willed. That's a right.

Really, a "right"? And how do you establish that? You have a right to all that you need- what exactly is it that you need when you are dead? Please answer this question (if any since you pick and choose and tend to leave the most problamatic ones for your argument alone). If a dead person with a communicable disease wills that their body be disposed in the public drinking water, are we still required to do as they wished? No? The you establish that Society DOES have the right to determine how a body is disposed of (my argument from the get-go)

*Because human cannibalization isn't necessary to the survival of most people, most of the time, on this planet.

Neither is eating meat, should that be considered wrong too? We will reach a point soon where sex for reproduction will be unneccessary, at that point, would sex be "bad"?

On a news report last evening, people in an African nation who are facing starvation are eating insects, roots, and one man is even eating dirt...but they are not eating each other.

One man's altruism and humanity is anothers lack of sensibility and imagination.

You believe everything is subjective, and that there are no values. How can I give you proof? Logically, I can't.

Sure you can, show me something, anything that has an absolute value- show me something that is absolutely good or absolutely bad and I will convert.

*Ah, Freudian slips; gotta watch out for those.

Who said I slipped

*And you also believe ::values:: are subjective.

They are, they depend on context.

If that's so, you should feel no hesitation whatsoever to provide this message board with your full name, credit card names and numbers, bank account numbers, your street address, telephone number, and Social Security number [if you're a USA citizen]. But you won't -- which proves that even you have objective values.

No, it proves I have common sense! The fact that I point out that all values are subjective does not mean that I do not have values- I do. However, i see them for what they are- they are based on my experience, my upbringing, my society, my feelings, my desires, my history- just like everyone else. I think my values are "right", but I don't assume they are "right" for everyone (though it would be a better place if they were). I like french fries, I think they are good- I don't like monkey brains, I think they are bad- however, me thinking that, or even 6.5 billion other people thinking the same exact thing makes it no more "right" than when it was just me.

It's like saying your version of God is the right one, and all the others are wrong. You may FEEL that way, but the feelings do not make it true unto itself. That's ultimetly what is wrong with Voltaire and anyone else who chases after your "Reason"- it dosen't exsist, it is a figment of your imagination because it is predicated on an idea that "good" and "bad" can be absolute- good and bad are human creations and exsist only in our minds when we place a VALUE on something.

*Because a dead human body isn't an object.

What is it then? It isn't a person, people are animate. It is inanimate, which leads me to speculate that it is an object. Please Cindy, if it isn't an object, what is a dead body?

Even animals don't treat their own dead with disregard.

Have you watched jackals? Bottom feeders? Amobeas? Ants? Bee's?

I've seen a mother sea lion grieving the death of her newborn infant; if that wailing wasn't grief, I don't know what is.

Do you speak Sea Lion naturally, or did you pick it up in school? Anthromorphitizing is a common human trait when we seek to understand alien behavior. The fact of the matter is you may have thought it was grieving, and I may have thought it was hungry- we won't know and it is pointless to assume that we could somehow know. A better question is do all sea lions behave in a similar fashion under similar circumstances- do they exhibit this behavior is other situations that might be considered as possible "grief casues". I understand the point you try to convey, I just reject it based on the limited information given.

They are recognizing the bones and skull as having belonged to one of them.

Do you speak elephant too? You are placing human attributes on elephant behavior in an attempt to understand the elephant behavior. It's like saying mice like to stay in shape, that's why they get on the little mouse runner in their cage...

Palomar · 2002-07-02 16:38:29

**I'm not sure this got posted the first time; if it's a repeat, I'll delete it later. The board shows that mine is the last reply to this thread, yet I don't see it in the thread. Sorry for any redundancy -- it's not deliberate. I just want to make sure this gets posted.**

Clark [in a previous post]: "It DOSEN'T deserve/have/need any rights, irregardless of it's former status. The act of being alive imbues you and I with certain unalienable rights- why, becuase we are ALIVE."

*Well, black people in 1840s America were ALIVE, yet they had no rights. Women under the Taliban regimen of Afghanistan were ALIVE, yet they had no rights. See where this leads? Being ALIVE back then, for those people, wasn't an assurance of having rights...because blacks in America and women under the Taliban weren't respected. You yourself asked, "Really, a 'right'? And how do you establish that?" How did we establish that black people have rights [in DAILY PRACTICE, not in theory] in America?

Clark: "You are smarter than this Cindy, I have to believe that you see the inherent weakness of the stance you are taking."

*I see nothing weak in the position I take. To subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as truth, value, objectiveness, etc., -- i.e. that everything is subjective -- is to lay the field wide open to atrocities and the decline/decay of human civilization.

Clark: "We will reach a point soon where sex for reproduction will be unneccessary, at that point, would sex be "bad"?"

*You said earlier that ethics is totally subjective. I say it isn't. There's nothing wrong with sex...so long as both parties are consenting to it. A heterosexual man in need of a woman's intimacies can either a) find a willing partner b) hire a prostitute or c) forcibly rape a woman into submission to a sexual act. A and B are fine -- both parties are consenting to sex; one for mutual pleasure, the other for the money. C is wrong -- because no woman should be forced to have sex against her will. As I've said before, a person's subjectiveness usually hits the wall of objectivity when they are on the receiving end of something unpleasant.

Me previously: "You believe everything is subjective, and that there are no values. How can I give you proof? Logically, I can't."

Clark: "Sure you can, show me something, anything that has an absolute value- show me something that is absolutely good or absolutely bad and I will convert."

*Weeks ago I gave you the example of a loving and caring mother tending to her baby's cries of hunger as opposed to Josef Mengele's deliberately and calculatedly allowing a Jewish infant to starve to death at Auschwitz, in order to see how long it would take for the baby to die. You saw no goodness in the mother's actions as opposed to the heinous cruelty [badness] of Mengele's actions. You saw them as being on an equal footing, i.e. the mother wasn't good and Mengele wasn't bad.

I'm leading you to the water, darling, but you're not drinking!

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you prefer to believe all is subjective.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 06:46:49

*Well, black people in 1840s America were ALIVE, yet they had no rights. Women under the Taliban regimen of Afghanistan were ALIVE, yet they had no rights.

Okay, so you are equating the lack of rights for dead people with the lack of rights of certain oppresed people... Do you see where this is going? Shall we make the next step towards including dead people in society so that we finally have a just and fair society?! This is absurd. I have to reject you equating dead people on par with the currently living. The examples you site are people who are alive and are oppresed for no other reason than what they look like- then you make the dubious jump by equating this to dead bodies- this is silly. A woman is a human, a person of color is a human- we are all human, therefore we all have the same rights- are you suggesting that a dead person is still a human?

To subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as truth, value, objectiveness, etc., -- i.e. that everything is subjective -- is to lay the field wide open to atrocities and the decline/decay of human civilization.

Actually, it acts to prevent mank of the atrocities- saying that all values are subjective is not the same as saying we have no values. It is a statement of understanding- I have my view, you have your view- neither is right, neither is wrong. How many conflicts are the result of two differing points of view? Accepting that everyone is EQUALLY correct in their views allows for the respect of others and allows for self-determination- instead of forcing some supposed absolute beliefs on those who might differ in opinion.

Before you quote the Nazi experience you should see how it DEMONSTRATES my point- the Nazi had a belief system they thought was correct- that they forced on other people. If there was a simple philosphy and/or acceptance that beliefs and values are subjective, then it would be less likely things like that would happen.

Question Cindy, did Voltaire ever figure out what was absolutely good or absolutely bad?

You saw no goodness in the mother's actions as opposed to the heinous cruelty [badness] of Mengele's actions. You saw them as being on an equal footing, i.e. the mother wasn't good and Mengele wasn't bad.

No, you misunderstand. I can see the difference in action becuase I apply a personal value to their actions- however, me applying that value dosen't make the actions good or bad in and of them selves. Actions are netural- it is an act.

Example: I fire a gun. Netural, neither good nor bad.

I fire a gun and it kills a man. Bad, I just murdered someone. However, maybe that man was trying to kill someone else, now that makes my action good- but I killed, which is bad, but it was in defense, so it was good, but the act remains the same.... What makes an action good or bad Cindy? It's perspective- the man who gets shot thinks it is bad, and it is becuase now he is dead (and no longer has rights! )But the person I saved thinks it is good.

The example you give, the nazi- lets say they did that but found some medical info out that saves 100,000,000 starving babies- to the babies and the family, this one action is good- yet we hold that it is bad- so which is it? It's neither- it is an action which we apply meaning to in order to understand it.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you prefer to believe all is subjective.

Experience and an understanding of the human mind. I always wondered why philosphy majors in college are never required to take courses that examine brain structure and sensory input, you end up missing a big piece of understanding in my humble opinion.

Palomar · 2002-07-03 08:32:39

Clark: Okay, so you are equating the lack of rights for dead people with the lack of rights of certain oppresed people... Do you see where this is going? Shall we make the next step towards including dead people in society so that we finally have a just and fair society?! This is absurd.

*You apparently keep missing my point, that being the LIVE person has a right to funerary requests.

Clark: "Accepting that everyone is EQUALLY correct in their views allows for the respect of others and allows for self-determination"

*Not everyone's opinions and viewpoints are of equal worth or merit. They are entitled to their views, however.

Clark: "- instead of forcing some supposed absolute beliefs on those who might differ in opinion."

*You are misinterpreting using philosophical Reason as being synonymous with/advocating "forcing" someone to believe differently. Denis Diderot was right when he said it is NOT the philosophers who have murdered, tyrannized, and punished persons who disagreed with them, but the religious establishment which has. I'm all for freedom of thought, opinion, etc., etc. However, not all views/opinions are of equal worth or merit; however, everyone is entitled to theirs.

Clark: "Before you quote the Nazi experience you should see how it DEMONSTRATES my point- the Nazi had a belief system they thought was correct- that they forced on other people. If there was a simple philosphy and/or acceptance that beliefs and values are subjective, then it would be less likely things like that would happen."

*There's a huge difference between blind fanaticism [the Nazis] and utilizing Reason as a guide to recognizing Naziism as the monstrocity and fanaticism that it was.

Clark: "Question Cindy, did Voltaire ever figure out what was absolutely good or absolutely bad?"

*He definitely had his ideas of what good and bad were. He also encouraged his readers to keep in mind "how little it is we really know." Have you ever READ Voltaire, Clark? Do you have an idea of him as being a one-dimensional sort of character? He wasn't. Have you ever read Ayn Rand? Or do you simply read -- and prefer to read -- what panders to your viewpoints and opinions? I've been all over the spectrum of thought. I've read and studied Nietzsche, Anton LaVey, Timothy Leary [yeah, the "LSD guru"], Dr. John Lilly [the first man to jump into a sensory-deprivation tank while on LSD...his experiences provided the basis for the movie "Altered States," and he's written books as well], Robert Anton Wilson, Carlos Castenada [I recommend his book _Journey to Ixtlan_ especially; there's a lot of wisdom in that book] -- people very different from Rand and Voltaire. I've challenged myself to take into consideration drastically differing points of view, from personalities and lifestyles radically different from one another. A year ago I began reading Voltaire and other 18th-century philosophers...and I found myself identifying, in great part, with what they had to say. However, I continue to read and expose myself to differing points of view. I've learned a lot from Voltaire. I've also learned from -- and incorporated into my life -- some of the sentiments of Lilly, Wilson, and etc. I'll read ::anything:: which tweaks my interest. Are you willing to do the same? Have you? Some of the most self-proclaimed liberal people I've known turned out, in their own way, to have their own peculiar brand of dogmatic and dead-end/self-pandering ideas.

Clark: "What makes an action good or bad Cindy?"

*Motive and intent.

Clark: It's perspective- the man who gets shot thinks it is bad, and it is becuase now he is dead (and no longer has rights! )But the person I saved thinks it is good.

The example you give, the nazi- lets say they did that but found some medical info out that saves 100,000,000 starving babies- to the babies and the family, this one action is good- yet we hold that it is bad- so which is it? It's neither- it is an action which we apply meaning to in order to understand it.

*Is forcible rape neither wrong nor right?

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-07-03 08:45:14

*Well, black people in 1840s America were ALIVE, yet they had no rights. Women under the Taliban regimen of Afghanistan were ALIVE, yet they had no rights.
A woman is a human, a person of color is a human- we are all human, therefore we all have the same rights- are you suggesting that a dead person is still a human?

Playing devil's advocate here:

*So I as a living woman am entitled to rights because I am a living human being [quoting you].

So what? Various societies have "holy scriptures" which teach it's okay to beat "disobedient" wives; that women should be denied sexual pleasure and undergo genital mutilation; that a woman who so much as raises her arms to protect her face during a beating should be killed for resisting her husband; on and on.

You've said all viewpoints are equal; one is not better than the other. So where do you get off saying women DO have rights, when these people say women DON'T have rights?

What do you base your idea that women DO have rights on? Can't you see that you are differentiating yourself from the persons who say women't DON'T have rights? And how can both of you be neither right nor wrong? How could you convince said society to not beat and kill "disobedient" women -- how could you convince them to grant women the right NOT to be beated and killed for disagreeing with her husband, or for thinking for herself -- if you were to tell them, as you tell me, that all viewpoints are equal, and that no one is wrong or right?

Hmmmm?

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 09:59:33

*You apparently keep missing my point, that being the LIVE person has a right to funerary requests.

I don't deny that a live person can make a "request", I contend though that Society has the final discretion on how the body is disposed of, irregardless of the requests made. Does a rock have rights? For all intents and purposes, a dead body is nothing more than a rock- or at best, rotting meat- the rights it once had only exsisted when the dead body was alive, at the point of death though, there are no more rights. If we establish that next of kin can take into position the dead body, we neccessarily deny that the body has rights and are forced to treat it as property. People can take into ownership property, not people- a dead body is property, and society has every right to determine how property is used.

*Not everyone's opinions and viewpoints are of equal worth or merit. They are entitled to their views, however.

Sounds like arrogance. WHICH opinions and viewpoints are of equal worth or merit? Which opinions and viewpoints are more valid, which less valid? What makes them so? How do you know? What is the criteria? What is the criteria based on? Who determines what the criteria is? How is that critera determined? If some views are worth "more", that neccessarily means others are worth "less"- how can someone be ENTITLED to a lesser opinion? How can someone's viewpoint, or belief, be LESS than something else?

*You are misinterpreting using philosophical Reason as being synonymous with/advocating "forcing" someone to believe differently.

No, I wasn't- sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify: "Reason" is this ideal of absolute- that there CAN be an absolute good, which means that there is absolute bad. This means that something is good ALWAYS, without question, and completely apparaent to all people at all times- the same is true for absolute bad. It is impossible.

He definitely had his ideas of what good and bad were.

As do I, as do you, as does everyone. However, just becuase I think it, or you think it, or Voltaire thinks it dosen't make it good or bad in and of itself. Good and bad are merely units of measurement for morality, which is based on personal experience- we each have a different ruler by which we measure actions- our "rulers" determine how bad or good something truly is to us. The only way to establish an absolute would be to establish a common "ruler" by which to measure all actions equally- such a thing is not possible because it would require everyone to have the same point of view.

Or do you simply read -- and prefer to read -- what panders to your viewpoints and opinions?

Sorry, I try not to fall into that trap- reading only what meets my views- its a natural tendancy that we ALL have. I like challenging my views so I don't feel this applies right now.

A year ago I began reading Voltaire and other 18th-century philosophers...and I found myself agreeing, in great part, with what they had to say.

Ah, the philospher du jour. What og Hume, Sarte, or Kirkegard? The trouble with some of the older philosphies is that they seem a bit antiquated in there views and many of their arguments have been refuted with time by others. I am reading Prodhun now, I will look into MORE Voltaire in the future- however, how is it that you believe in this idea of Reason, of absolute value for morality, yet you can offer no evidence of what should be readily apparent to anyone?

Are you willing to do the same? Have you?

Yes and Yes. I never thought I would agree with half the things I start arguing for, but more often than not I succeed in seeing the opposite of what I originaly held as true. I used to be all for the "individual", and I still am, but just less so- and this is a direct result of my disscussions on this board. Prove your point, or show where my logic does not hold up and I WILL agree.

*Is forcible rape neither wrong nor right?

"I" think it is wrong based on my personal views of morality, which is derived from history, culture, and current social environment. However, none of that makes it wrong or right in and of itself. If I saw such an act, I would do my best to prevent it- however, that it me forcing my values on others.

Is forcing your values on someone else right or wrong?

clark · 2002-07-03 10:10:55

You've said all viewpoints are equal; one is not better than the other. So where do you get off saying women DO have rights, when these people say women DON'T have rights?

I get off on saying that women have rights becuase that is my personal view- I never said that it was "right".

What do you base your idea that women DO have rights on?

Very personal, and very subjective values.

Can't you see that you are differentiating yourself from the persons who say women't DON'T have rights?

So? Me differntiating myself dosen't mean that they are "right" or I am "right"- it only means we have differing opinions and points of view.

And how can both of you be neither right nor wrong?

Because it is all a matter of opinion! Right and wrong are subjective values used to measure and give meaning to action. All action is neutral, how we perceive that action, that is how we give the action meaning- to understand it.

How could you convince said society to not beat and kill "disobedient" women -- how could you convince them to grant women the right NOT to be beated and killed for disagreeing with her husband, or for thinking for herself -- if you were to tell them, as you tell me, that all viewpoints are equal, and that no one is wrong or right?

"I" would show them my value system, my beliefs, and let them decide for themselves. I would help the women who asked for help. What else should be done? Should we force our views and value system on them becuase we don't like what they think or do? Is that "right"?

Palomar · 2002-07-03 10:25:08

Clark: "I would show them my value system, my beliefs, and let them decide for themselves."

*Finally! A point of agreement between us! That's what I would also do.

Clark: "What else should be done? Should we force our views and value system on them becuase we don't like what they think or do? Is that "right"?"

*No. No one should be forced to believe/accept anything. However, I maintain my belief that not all viewpoints and opinions are of equal merit or worth. Usama bin Laden's ideas are repugnant to me; his ideas and their implications are inferior to those of Ghandi's.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 10:41:04

*Finally! A point of agreement between us! That's what I would also do.

See, it's not so hard. Now say it with me, "Values are subjective, however this does not negate my personal belief that my values are right, it only serves to delinieate that my personal value system is "right" only as far as my personal will extends". That's what you are saying when you agree to how you would help women being beaten.

*No. No one should be forced to believe/accept anything.

Why not? If there is absolute good, why shouldn't people be forced to accept what is absolutely good?

However, I maintain my belief that not all viewpoints and opinions are of equal merit or worth.

How do you determine the relative worth? You can maintain that all viewpoints are not equal to YOU, but how can you honestly belive that some views are just lesser merit by the fact of their exsistence? Wouldn't such a thing be apparent to anyone?

Usama bin Laden's ideas are repugnant to me;

CORRECT! To YOU. They are repugnant to you, but that does not make his ideas repugnant in and of themselves. Do you see the difference?

his ideas and their implications are inferior to those of Ghandi's.

You forgot to add " in my view". What about the ideas themselves make them inferior to those of Ghandi? "Inferior" implies a lesser value than something that is "superior", from what do you derive this value? How do you determine that an idea is lesser or greater?

Palomar · 2002-07-03 10:43:23

Clark: "Sounds like arrogance."

*You're entitled to your opinion.

Clark: "WHICH opinions and viewpoints are of equal worth or merit? Which opinions and viewpoints are more valid, which less valid? What makes them so? How do you know? What is the criteria? What is the criteria based on?"

*What result will they have? What sort of fruit will they bear? What is the purpose/motivation/intention/aim/agenda behind them? Are they destructive or constructive in nature?

Clark: "If some views are worth "more", that neccessarily means others are worth "less"- how can someone be ENTITLED to a lesser opinion? How can someone's viewpoint, or belief, be LESS than something else?"

*I simply said everyone is entitled to their opinions and viewpoints, and that not all of them are of equal worth or merit. How can someone be entitled to a lesser opinion? Look at Germany circa 1946. What sort of fruit did Hitler's ideas ultimately bear? Look to history, Clark.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 10:55:05

*What result will they have?

What results "should" they have? Why?

What sort of fruit will they bear?

What sort of fruit "should" they bear? Why?

What is the purpose/motivation/intention/aim/agenda behind them?

What should the purpose or motivation be? What are the right intentions? What are the wrong aims? How do you derive these reasons?

Are they destructive or constructive in nature?

Again, a value- one persons destruction is anothers creation- a man has his house destroyed, in it's place is put a hospital- what is that? How can you have an actual absolute value when the value is derived subjectively?

How can someone be entitled to a lesser opinion? Look at Germany circa 1946. What sort of fruit did Hitler's ideas ultimately bear? Look to history, Clark.

It depends on how you look at it- if we look to history, we see Hitler's ideas come to frutition in a united Europe which exsists today- he merely chose a different way to implement, or take action, his ideas. If history is the answer, how can we ever know until after the fact?

Palomar · 2002-07-03 11:31:00

Me: What result will they have?

Clark: What results "should" they have? Why?

Me: What sort of fruit will they bear?

Clark: What sort of fruit "should" they bear? Why?

*Not SHOULD, Clark. What WILL the results [fruits] of certain ideas be? We can look to history for examples, patterns, etc. Humans have a knack of not learning from past mistakes. "He who mistakes what should be for what is deceives himself, and ensures his own ruin." -- Machiavelli

Clark: "If history is the answer, how can we ever know until after the fact?"

*Come on, Clark. This is a nonsense question. We can look to previous patterns of human behavior, actions, decisions, etc., to see if what we're doing could possibly lead to the same end.

Using philosophical Reason in one's life [ala Voltaire and Rand] is akin to making sure your boat or ship has a rudder, helm, and compass aboard. What you're proposing is life being a ship or boat without direction, without guidance systems, and at the mercy of whatever comes along [because you reject the notion of the ability to foresee and plan ahead, you espouse the idea that everything is subjective and therefore equal, nothing being better or worse than anything else].

I prefer the helm, rudder, and compass Reason provides for my ship.

I'll give you the last word on this.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 11:38:03

I find myself unable to adequately express the ideas in a manner that answers you, and provides the systematic explanation apparently needed to delineate the subtly of what I am saying. I guess I assume that what I say is apparent, and the reasoning transparent.

Morality, ethics, viewpoints, positions, arguments, ad nasuem all are derived from a personal point of view. These personal points of view are based in large part on an individuals experience, which includes but not limited to, history, culture, religion, dreams, desires, aspirations, regret, suffering, predisposition, trust, intellect, etc. These disparate elements all combine to help us formulate meaning in action.

Action, alone, the very act of acting is a neutral endeavor. An action is a physical and measurable fact- it exists in the relationship of cause and effect. We can say a body is in motion, how fast that body is in motion, which direction the body is moving, and where the body finally rests. We can even state why it is moving if it is in relation to a cause and effect. However, there is no objective means possible with which to measure the movement of a body as "bad" or "good". The key here is "objective".

How can we determine if a body in motion is good or bad objectively? We know that 2+2 = 4, anyone who is asked will tell you the same exact thing. We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed- everyone who looks sees the same exact thing, the experience is exactly the same, no matter what means you use to measure any of these examples, you will come to the same result. Now, a body in motion, how do we determine if such motion is good or bad? If we try applying the scientific principle, we discover that it is simply impossible to meet the repeatable test requirement because the means with which individuals would measure whether or not the body in motion is good or bad is based on subjective experience.

If we lack the means with which to objectively measure whether something is truly good or something is truly bad, how can we assume that anything truly is good or truly is bad? Absolutism implies a means by which to measure- the speed of light is an absolute in a vacuum, which allows for us to agree that the speed of light goes such and such a speed- which allows for us to measure the speed of everything else in relation to the speed of light. We can all agree that a pound weighs exactly a pound, and then measure everything else in relation to that.

How do you measure a body in motion as being good or bad when there is no absolute value for what is good and what is bad?

The issue is that good and bad are untimely meaningless because the value is ultimately derived from each individual- the value is limited to each individual. There is no means by which we can objectively view an Act as good or bad, because ultimately, these actions are measured in terms of whether or not it is good or bad compared to something else- which is valued just as arbitrarily.

Values do exist, but they are meaningless in trying to determine quality or quantity- quality and quantity are mathematical expressions derived from absolute values, which do not exist for neutral actions.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-05 07:34:52

I've read through as much of this exchange as I can and I've decided that Clark and Cindy are unlikely to reach agreement.
Try this on for size: Recently a middle-aged male decided to have sexual intercourse with an 18 month old baby girl. The injuries were such that the little girl died an agonising death. The pain that the parents of that baby girl felt when they learned what had happened is impossible to imagine. The torture that will go on in their minds for the rest of their lives can only be equated with the suffering of the damned.
The man's decision to do what he did was intrinsically bad, the agony of the baby girl was intrinsically bad, the suffering of the parents is also intrinsically bad ..... BAD, BAD, BAD !!!
Clark can contrive sophisticated arguments until he turns blue, but if he cannot see that no sentient creature with the ability to feel pain could construe this nightmare event as anything but BAD, then I guess I'll never understand what makes him tick.
If that makes me unsophisticated, then thanks very much, but I'd rather stay that way!

clark · 2002-07-05 09:33:13

Recently a middle-aged male decided to have sexual intercourse with an 18 month old baby girl.

This is a fact- where does the value, or how "bad" this is come from? That's my point, value is derived by individuals, it is not derived from Action itself. The value of an action is determined by what that Action means to you- how it makes YOU feel. And that is different for everyone.

Clark can contrive sophisticated arguments until he turns blue, but if he cannot see that no sentient creature with the ability to feel pain could construe this nightmare event as anything but BAD, then I guess I'll never understand what makes him tick.

You haven't read closely enough then- "I" have values. "I" think the guy who did this should suffer. "I" think anyone who would say that this is a "good" thing is screwed up and has a set of values that are ultimetly incompatible with the rest of society... HOWEVER, I also can understand how my mind works, and how value is derived.

I am trying to explain a human process of understanding by pointing out that value is derived from subjective experience and not from objective facts. A deed is just a deed, wheter or not it is a good or bad deed depends on who is viewing it.

YES, there are certain acts which almost all people find "bad", and which almost all people find "good"- but just becuase we all agree that something is good or bad dosen't make it so- People used to think the world was flat- but that didn't make it so.

Example: A rock falls. Is that good or bad?

A rock falls on a person. Is that good or bad?
A rock falls on a person who is about to kill someone. Is that good or bad, for who?
A rock falls on a person who is about to kill someone who is innocent. Is that good or bad, for who?

If action did indeed have value in and of itself, all parties, and all perspectives would agree on what which was good and which was bad and why. Do they? Can they? Hell NO.

If that makes me unsophisticated, then thanks very much, but I'd rather stay that way!

I am not suggesting that we live in a world without value, I am suggesting that we just understand ourselves a bit more.

Again, I challenge anyone to demonstrate an action that has an absolute value. Show where my flaws are, where the logic dosen't hold up.

Byron · 2002-07-11 08:55:31

Again, I challenge anyone to demonstrate an action that has an absolute value. Show where my flaws are, where the logic dosen't hold up.

First of all, let me start out by making a statement, and asking and answering the questions that follow: "Life has Intrinsic Value," i.e., the value of life is absolute. But how is "life" defined? Any biological organism capable of self-sustainment and reproduction. But the definition of "life" doesn't end there. What about "intelligent" life, e.g., the human race? Considering how humans are capable of far more than mere self-sustainment and reproduction, might this form of "life" be defined as something like "life to the nth power"? After all, before there were people, Nature simply went about its merry way of endless cycles of creation and destruction (life and death), and there was no one around to know or care. Then came along homo sapiens, and lo and behold, life gained "intrinsic value," for the reason that we are intelligent, self-aware creatures capable of realizing this in the first place. So indeed, something was created that didn't exist before: the very notion of "value" and "life" itself.

Let me continue this line of thought a bit further. When homo sapiens began realizing that life did have this intrinsic value, something else followed...the creation of society. This was when people began living together for the purpose of making it "easier" to live. By living in cooperation, surplus food could be produced to stave off famine, shelter could be provided to protect against the elements, ad infintum. But in order to this to take place, something else had to be "created." This "creation" was a system of "values" that defined the parameters of whatever society that group of people happened to live in. This is where logic and objective thought is left behind, and human thought relies on something else, which the role of religion, philosophy, government, etc. comes in. Why? To establish a set of parameters for people to live by that will allow the "society" to not only sustain itself, but to progress to something more; to make life "better," i.e., progress.

Granted, we are getting into subjective territory here, but isn't that what the very act of human thinking involves? Sure, we understand such concepts as mathematics and science...things that just are, like the value of pi and 2+2=4. But there is so much more to human life (life to the nth power, again) than objective constructs. There is no getting away from the fact that the human brain is a biological object that creates "feelings" that define the world from our individual viewpoints....although all this is indeed subjective and cannot be measured in any objective manner, it is nethertheless *there*; it is an integeral part of the human condition, and without "feeling" or "conscious thought," human life would be just that, just life (life without value), not the privilaged "life to the nth power" (life with value) that we enjoy. After all, if the one and only "absolute value" in the realm of existence is the inherent value of life itself...isn't this still not the result of human "thought"? Therefore, recognizing that life has value means that we define life as "good" and conversely, we define anti-life (death) as "bad."

But life (human life) is more than simply being alive and dead. Human life represents the entirety of human civilization and society, with all the aggregate "values" of individuals coming together to define "society." Society represents a great deal more than merely sustaining life; it is the mechanism that allows the human race to achieve successively higher levels of thought, and consquently, a higher standard of living. Take the United States for example...people got together define a set of values, in addition to life itself..indeed the concept of "happiness" was defined as a "value" to preserve and protect. From these "values" flowed the actions of this group of people to build what we have today...a society capable of sustaining a whole lot more "life" than 225 years ago. (Our huge population is a good objective measurement) By defining what is "good" and what is "bad", this is what enables people to do more than just "live," like animals and plants do...indeed this is the "thing" (what cannot be objectively defined) that makes us who we are...the recognition of something that not really "there". (subjective values.)

Clark, before you get yourself into a snit, please bear with me a bit longer... One might ask how can something that not really "there" effect what IS there? Plenty. By us humans recogizing these emphreal "values" as a part of the human condition, this has served as the "mechanism" to base our whole society upon. After all, "Society" is simply a set of definations of how to live for maximum benefit...and this is something that flows from the individuals of that society...essentially it is the "sum" of these individual values that are then "averaged" to form the whole of society itself.

Admittally, these human "values" do not always follow the basic rules of logic and reason...indeed that is the greatest challenge of the human race...defining the values that are "good" or "bad"...these definitions do change depending on the particular context they are drawn from, and humans, for the most part, are NOT rational, logical beings...because the human brain is not a computer filled with on and off switches. This is why it is impossible to have a completely rational, objective government, court, or whatever "neutral third party" that Clark likes to invoke on occassion. These are still made up of *people* with their feelings and emotions and values that are certainly not based on scientific or mathematic principles. Otherwise, we would all be living in Utopia, and we wouldn't be having these debates on New Mars...lol

But I want to close by referring back to Clark's statement about "actions" not having "absolute value." If there is one thing that we can agree that IS absolute...Life has Value...than we are able to define this as "good." That is objective as it gets, agree? Then conversely, the end of Life has to carry the defination of "bad", as bad is the opposite of good. Flowing from these two statements, we would have to say that any action that sustains life is good (rain is "good", without it, we would die,) and any action that ends life in some fashion is bad. This is a simple, logical rational deduction, comprende? Therefore the action of murder (I'm talking about cold-blooded murder here, NOT self-defense, etc) is defined as "bad," and the person that commits that murder is considered "bad." A Life has been terminated, a violation of the one absolute, objective value that provides the bedrock of the whole human thought process. So yes, that "action" has "absolute value," as it destroyed the one thing that does have absolute value, the Intrinsic Value of Life. So how is it then, that the act of committing a murder is not "bad"? That, Clark, is the basic flaw in your logic...we can reduce and reduce, but the logic train has to come to a stop somewhere, and the very notion of "Life Has Value" is the dividing line between where logic ends and the mysterious realm of human thought begins...which is the thing that makes us "human," not just some random cluster of atoms in this particular corner of the universe...

'nuff said....

B

clark · 2002-07-11 11:13:25

'nuff said....

LOL, well said, but a bit premature.

"Life has Intrinsic Value," i.e., the value of life is absolute.

What is the "value" of life? Quantify it. Life does have value, but that value only exsists to illustrate that all life is equal in relation to itself. My life, your life, Cindy's life- the value of each of our lives is intrinsicaly the same- no one has a more valuable life than another. However, this equality in value does not imbue any objective value- it only serves to prove that are inherent worth, whatever it may be, is always the same.

But how is "life" defined? Any biological organism capable of self-sustainment and reproduction.

According to this definition, there is no possibility for artifical intelligence, and it would exclude virus's. Either way, what we shoulf focus on are the shared qualities of ALL life, not just a limited subset (witch is determined subjectively). If something is ALIVE, period, it is life. It therfore derives value. Otherwise, we allow for subjective determination in order to qualify life.

Your qualifications for life exclude Christopher Reeve by the way, and all like him. Is he therefore not life?

What about "intelligent" life, e.g., the human race? Considering how humans are
capable of far more than mere self-sustainment and reproduction, might this form of "life" be defined as something like "life to the nth power"?

Ahh, but you see, now you are qualifying life- you are holding a type of life as having more value than another type of life. While I agree with the sentiment, it is derived through subjective values that not all people share- you have no objective way of determining the value of life in relation to other life because that value place between the different life-types is arbitrary. There are many people who hold that Cows are a life of equal value as human- prove them wrong. Either all life has the same value or it dosen't- if it dosen't, tell me how we objectively derive and place a value on everything.

After all, before there were people, Nature simply went about its merry way of endless cycles of creation and destruction (life and death), and there was no one around to know or care.

No one needs to care- caring is a value and meaningless. You are applying a subjective value- that someone being able to witness the cycles of creation and destruction is better than no one witnessing the act. However, there were witness's- just not us.

Then came along homo sapiens, and lo and behold, life gained "intrinsic value," for the reason that we are intelligent, self-aware creatures capable of realizing this in the first place.

No, life IS, WAS, and ALWAYS will have the same intrinsic value. When you add qualifiers you apply a value system which is subjective and arbitrary (oh lord I repeat myself soooo much. :0 ) Nazi use to hold that certain people were less human based on certain qualifiers- you do the same thing to "life" by stating the intrinsic value is based on reason and intelligence.

When homo sapiens began realizing that life did have this intrinsic value, something else followed...the creation of society.

A bit of a jump there don't you think? my stance is that society formed because groups are more succesful in competing for resources than a single individual. Society forms out of neccessity, not out of a common respect for one another.

Why? To establish a set of parameters for people to live by that will allow the "society" to not only sustain itself, but to progress to something more; to make life "better," i.e., progress.

Life has no objective meaning other than itself, which is to continue being alive. Any "meaning", such as progress is a value which is not objective. How does a flower look to "progress"? How do Amish people who only want a certain way of life "progress"? If we accept that life exsists to progress, that neccessarily mean that to not progress, or to regress is impossible- it would be a violation of self.

Granted, we are getting into subjective territory here, but isn't that what the very act of human thinking involves?

No, we are in subjective territory. And yes, this is the very act of human thinking. However, just cause we think so does not make it so.

But there is so much more to human life (life to the nth power, again) than objective constructs.

All true, however there can be no objective values for life, no matter how we may look at it.

There is no getting away from the fact that the human brain is a biological object that creates "feelings" that define the world from our individual viewpoints....although all this is indeed subjective and cannot be measured in any objective manner, it is nethertheless *there*; it is an integeral part of the human condition, and without "feeling" or "conscious thought," human life would be just that, just life (life without value), not the privilaged "life to the nth
power" (life with value) that we enjoy.

So you suggest that are ability to subjectivly experience life is what imbues human life with value? You also suggest that "feelings" or "consious thought" sets us apart from the rest of life- I believe animals feel, and I believe monkies are capable of displaying consious thought. You are qualifying the value- or the requirements for the "inherent" value of life. In doing so, you allow anyone to apply ANY qulifiers to what is neccessary for the "inherent" value of human life. Some may suggest that only certain skin colors are imbued with the "inherent" value of humanlife...

After all, if the one and only "absolute value" in the realm of existence is the inherent value of life itself...isn't this still not the result of human "thought"?

No, inherent implies that it is independant of US. The "value" dosen't exsist- only the equality of value between all life exsists. Even the act of claiming that only human life is equal to itself, but greater than other types of life is a value system (one I am guilty of agreeing with, but what do you do ).

Therefore, recognizing that life has value means that we define life as "good" and conversely, we define anti-life (death) as "bad."

Judges? Sorry, you're wrong. Life does not have "value", it onyl has equality of value. If you say life is good, that means ALL life is good, and all non-life is bad. However, this is again a value system based on subjective critera- that life is good. Why is life good? Why is non-life bad? Is a rock bad? no. It is a thing, with no real value. We are a thing ( a moving breathing thinking thing), but a thing all the same- therfore we are the same as a rock, and have no definable value... other than that we are equal in value- whatever that may be.

By defining what is "good" and what is "bad", this is what enables people to do more than just "live," like animals and plants do...indeed this is the "thing" (what cannot be objectively defined) that makes us who we are...the recognition of something that not really "there". (subjective values.)

I have never denied the benefits of subjective values, but I also temper it with the destruction caused by subjective values. The destructionis often caused becuase one set of people impose their subjective values on another set of people becuase they believe their values to be "good" and theirs to be "bad". But the good and bad do not objectively exsist, making such actions as mentioned illigitimate. I reject the rationaliztion of this behavior.

Clark, before you get yourself into a snit, please bear with me a bit longer...

LOL...snit. I truly enjoy hearing yours (and quite a few others) points of view.

This is why it is impossible to have a completely rational, objective government, court, or whatever "neutral third party" that Clark likes to invoke on occassion.

the confusion is caused by the duality of my discussions- one is theoritcal, one is practical. Yes, the human is an imperfect being, but saying that dosen't make it any easier to live with them. However, understanding the human condition engenders respect for others points of view, which can only help with the practical day-to day living we must go through. I point out that are values are subjective, but that does not negate or detract from developing practical ways to deal with one another.

These are still made up of *people* with their feelings and emotions and values that are certainly not based on scientific or mathematic principles.

All true, and they don't need to be. We all have different value systems, so we utilize society to help us interact with each other and prevent each other from infringing on each others value system (liberty) too much.

If there is one thing that we can agree that IS absolute...Life has Value...than we are able to define this as "good."

No, we do not agree. Life has no absolute value. It has an absolute equality of value, applying good or bad to it is meaningless.

That is objective as it gets, agree?

2+2=4 is as objective as it gets. Good implies a discernable value- please, tell me how you measure the relative "goodness" between various living things.

Then conversely, the end of Life has to carry the defination of "bad", as bad is the opposite of good.

No, the end of life is an action- the value of which is derived by individual meaning.

Flowing from these two statements, we would have to say that any action that sustains life is good (rain is "good", without it, we would die,) and any action that ends life in some fashion is bad.

No, any action that sustains life is just an action- with no real value, the same is true for anything that ends life.

A man is sentenced to death- that is bad for him. But the family he wronged feel it is good. Society feels it is good. But according to your argument, it can only be bad.

How about this: A man donates a kidney to his brother to save his life- which is good. But the operation takes his life- which is bad. A good act has resulted in a bad act. But the "good" and the "bad" are subjective depending on how we value the actions, how we perceive the situation, and who we are in the situation.

This is a simple, logical rational deduction, comprende?

Simple, logical, RATIONALIZATION. I understand.

Therefore the action of murder (I'm talking about cold-blooded murder here, NOT self-defense, etc) is defined as "bad," and the person that commits that murder is considered "bad."

So the assination of Bin Laden would be "bad"? If a military team is placed behind hostile lines and they kill, is that an act of self-defense or murder? They don't neccessarily need to be there... You see, it is all too subjective.

Life has been terminated, a violation of the one absolute, objective value that provides the bedrock of the whole human thought process.

The violation occurs when ONE life is valued differently than another life. Murder is bad in and of itself becuase it is placing the value of your own life as greater than the value of another life- not because of the act of murder, but what the murder represents.

So yes, that "action" has "absolute value," as it destroyed the one thing that does have absolute value, the Intrinsic Value of Life.

The action does not have an absolute value, otherwise we would all readily agree that all murder is wrong- but sometimes murder is justifiable, which means that murder can sometimes have different values. Absolute is 2+2=4, no one argues against it becuase to do so is to argue against reality. Even the act of violating the "equality of value" inherent in life is not "bad" or "good", it is an act whose value is determined by what it means and represents to us individualy.

So how is it then, that the act of committing a murder is not "bad"?

It isn't bad becuase it has no inherent value what so ever. Even you allowed for murder in the case of self-defense, however, this is a rationalization based on your personal value system that allows for acceptable situations in which murder is "okay". Either murder is ALWAYS bad, or it is ALWAYS good. Absolute value means that an action, or a thing, has the same value always.

Actions, life life, have an equality of value- however, our subjective value systems apply diffrent values to the same actions in order to derive meaning for ourselves- it is the measn by which we understand actions and how they relate to us. But none of these human process's imbue action, or life itself, with an objective value.

Good post Byron, and your argument is convincing, however, it is flawed in its assumptions.

Palomar · 2002-07-11 13:19:15

This "creation" was a system of "values" that defined the parameters of whatever society that group of people happened to live in. This is where logic and objective thought is left behind, and human thought relies on something else, which the role of religion, philosophy, government, etc. comes in. Why? To establish a set of parameters for people to live by that will allow the "society" to not only sustain itself, but to progress to something more; to make life "better," i.e., progress.
Granted, we are getting into subjective territory here, but isn't that what the very act of human thinking involves? Sure, we understand such concepts as mathematics and science...things that just are, like the value of pi and 2+2=4. But there is so much more to human life (life to the nth power, again) than objective constructs. There is no getting away from the fact that the human brain is a biological object that creates "feelings" that define the world from our individual viewpoints....although all this is indeed subjective and cannot be measured in any objective manner, it is nethertheless *there*; it is an integeral part of the human condition, and without "feeling" or "conscious thought," human life would be just that, just life (life without value), not the privilaged "life to the nth power" (life with value) that we enjoy. After all, if the one and only "absolute value" in the realm of existence is the inherent value of life itself...isn't this still not the result of human "thought"? Therefore, recognizing that life has value means that we define life as "good" and conversely, we define anti-life (death) as "bad."
But life (human life) is more than simply being alive and dead. Human life represents the entirety of human civilization and society, with all the aggregate "values" of individuals coming together to define "society." Society represents a great deal more than merely sustaining life; it is the mechanism that allows the human race to achieve successively higher levels of thought, and consquently, a higher standard of living. Take the United States for example...people got together define a set of values, in addition to life itself..indeed the concept of "happiness" was defined as a "value" to preserve and protect. From these "values" flowed the actions of this group of people to build what we have today...a society capable of sustaining a whole lot more "life" than 225 years ago. (Our huge population is a good objective measurement) By defining what is "good" and what is "bad", this is what enables people to do more than just "live," like animals and plants do...indeed this is the "thing" (what cannot be objectively defined) that makes us who we are...the recognition of something that not really "there". (subjective values.)

*Byron, I thought your post was interesting.

At this point, I'd like to [try, at least] and define what I mean by the words "subjective" and "objective."

I'm a medical transcriptionist. When a patient comes to visit the doctor, a history is taken and a physical examination is performed. Subsequent visits result in update of information, documenting of complaints, and findings of the physical examination.

The SUBJECTIVE portion of the patient's visit deals with what s/he is complaining about: Upset stomach or dizziness or a "weird pain that comes and goes in my lower back," etc. Some patients are clear and concise in stating what ails them; many more are not [they and their complaints are vague, uncertain, etc.].

A physician takes into consideration what the patient tells him/her, but does not treat the complaint as a *fact* until testing, observation, examination, etc., are done and results obtained. This is the OBJECTIVE portion of the interaction between patient and doctor. Laboratory tests are drawn, performed, analyzed; organs are palpated; etc. If the patient complains of a terrible burning sensation in the pit of his stomach, together with spitting up blood, the doctor can deduce he may have an ulcer -- but the diagnosis must be confirmed, which is the OBJECTIVE portion of interaction. The doctor uses objective criteria to prove or disprove the subjective complaints, and handle/treat the case accordingly.

If there were not a dividing line between subjective and objective in this context, anyone could walk into a physician's office claiming anything, and walk off with armfuls of pills -- and any semblence of professional, modern medicine would devolve into a joke.

Hopefully this serves to give a better idea of how I mean the words "subjective" and "objective" when I use them. It's the best analogy I have.

Subjectivity is part and parcel of the human experience; it plays a key role in the personality. But there is objectivity, too, and I prefer to use it as the guiding factor in my life.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-11 13:32:40

Subjectivity is part and parcel of the human experience; it plays a key role in the personality. But there is objectivity, too, and I prefer to use it as the guiding factor in my life.

Great example of a point Cindy. What you demonstrated is that the objective things the doctor writes down are the MEASURABLE things. Value systems are not measurable, and thus not objective.

Tell me how we can MEASURE "good" and "bad" objectively. That's the problem, we can't! If we can't measure something objectively, then we can never derive an objective value- the value will always depend on the person doing the measuring.

Byron · 2002-07-11 15:23:29

Great example of a point Cindy. What you demonstrated is that the objective things the doctor writes down are the MEASURABLE things. Value systems are not measurable, and thus not objective.
Tell me how we can MEASURE "good" and "bad" objectively. That's the problem, we can't! If we can't measure something objectively, then we can never derive an objective value- the value will always depend on the person doing the measuring.

I clearly understand that human values are not "objective" and therefore cannot be measured as such, but this doesn't mean we can ignore the "subjective" things, either. In Cindy's example of a patient's visit to a doctor, the doctor must rely on the patient to tell him what is "bad"...this by itself does not give him the information he/she needs to make a proper dianogsis...BUT...the doctor does use these "subjective" values of the patient ("my stomach hurts really, really bad") as a GUIDE to search for the objective parameters of the patient's condition, which consists of observations such as temperature, visible symptoms, etc. Without the "subjective" values of the patient (stomach hurting), the doctor wouldn't be able to determine what is actually wrong with the patient, as the patient most likely wouldn't have taken the action of going there in the first place...lol.

This is the gist of what I've trying to illustrate in my previous posts... Although there can be no way of objectively measuring of "good" and "bad," they certainly give us guidelines concerning the things that are objective, such as the preservation of life. Clark's hypothesis that reproduction regulation would be necessary on Mars is just that, a hpothesis..it cannot be measured until we actually have a Martian colony, complete with children and all. (Actually, we would need two colonies, one with child regulation, the other not.) Then we will know, i.e., we will have objective data on whether regulation is indeed necessary. But until that happens, the only tool that is available to us is ...you guessed it, subjective "values" of what you or I think might happen under those circumstances.

I love logical and objective methodology...it can and should be used whenever and wherever possible...as there's no way one can go "wrong" with this approach. But unfortunately, this does not represent the whole realm of human existence, and there is no escaping the use of so-called arbitrary values...otherwise, how can one make any sort of "hypothesis" (whatever this may be) to begin with? How can we "determine" what steps Society should take to ensure its own survival and so forth? After all, any action we take today affects what happens tomorrow...but we never know until we get to tomorrow...so the actions taken today are based on subjective thought on what we think WILL happen...but, of course, since it is subjective, there is no guarantee of anything... But this is something that *can't* be avoided, as we never have all the "objective" answers in front of us to begin with...

One cannot live by logic alone...

B

Palomar · 2002-07-11 16:23:16

*Byron, have you ever heard of Denis Diderot, read philosophical writings of his, or read about him? He was a contemporary of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire; both assisted him in putting together "l'Encyclopedie" by contributing articles.

It's ironic, because I just mentioned at my 18th-century mailing list a few days ago, after having read some new [to me] material about Denis Diderot, that it turns out he was The Reconciler between the opposing ideals of Voltaire and Rousseau. It's relatively rare that one finds such a complementary triad amongst great thinkers!

I'm not going to flatter myself by saying I'm being Voltaire here; he doesn't deserve a demotion by being compared to me [and no, that's not false humility on my part]. I'm neither flattering nor insulting Clark by saying he seems to be pretty much in with Rousseau's way of having seen things; he simply does seem to think similarly to Rousseau.

And now you are gracing the message boards with reconciliatory thoughts very much like Denis Diderot. This is a :::compliment:::, by the way.

I am extremely impressed with your posts of today, regarding subjectivism and objectivism. And it takes a lot to impress me.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-07-11 17:15:02

Thanks, Cindy...everyone loves a bona-fide :compliment:..

In answer to your question, I am not familiar with Denis Didrot...actually, the only French writer I've had experience with is Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book _Democracy in America_. But now you've got me interested... ...I'll be checking out that 18th century Enlightment reading list you've posted, for sure..lol.

I've always been a big fan of reconcilation...seeking the "third way" between polar opposites..., so now I'm quite curious of what Didrot has to say...

Again, thanks...I was beginning to wonder if I needed to just go and get a life; attempting to counter Clark's viewpoints like I have in the past couple of days...

Byron

Palomar · 2002-07-11 20:56:23

But now you've got me interested... ...I'll be checking out that 18th century Enlightment reading list you've posted, for sure..lol.
I've always been a big fan of reconcilation...seeking the "third way" between polar opposites..., so now I'm quite curious of what Didrot has to say...
Byron

*Hi Byron. I posted to "Free Chat: 18th Century Resources" a post I made a few days ago to my private mailing list, regarding Diderot's role [unintended] as reconciler between Voltaire and Rousseau. I'd be surprised if you don't recognize yourself there...or at least a semblance of yourself!

--Cindy

TioRay · 2002-07-12 00:24:28

Clark,

Please attempt a reply with out quoting bits and pieces of other peoples posts...about the time everyone here reached puberty they had worked out how the simple minded could abuse this method of debating. If you still don't know what I'm talking about then please turn your pc off and return it to your parents room.

I'm sure you can't follow this line of thinking, but hec, it amuses me to think of you trying to stand on you own two feet.

In actual fact I agree with you on your stance ..ummm...stances ...well atleast bits and pieces of the jumble you have elegantly turned into a debating train wreck.

Luckily for you I have worked with idiot savant's before...except you arn't that bad and I think we can be rid of the savant part.

Don't get me wrong Clark, I think most people have the maturity to cope with the simple skill of quoting without resorting to desperate twists and turns and the abandonment of logic all together, but in your case I think you should try crawling before you run.

I hope you have found my advice both informative and coherent and not just the thinly disguised put down it was intended to be. I added that last part just incase you couldn't read the "quotes" (get it) between the lines.

P.S Clark, I think if you keep it up...your dream of impressing Cindy will come true and one day you will marry her...heheheh....cruel but ohh so very very true.

clark · 2002-07-15 11:40:03

TioRay,

You fault me for my form without actually addressing the content of my discussions. You make snide and infantile jokes regarding my intelligence without pointing to the actual flaws in my argument. In very pretty sentences you feign to understand and agree with my principles, yet make no indication at all that you can prove such an assetion. You are in every sense of the word, an ass.

No big words here for you, that would merely provide you fodder to uleash your prepubecent imagination with derisive and meaningless chatter. I'm not sure what is worse, your attempt at intellectual intimidation, or your simple childish behavior.

Considering that you are new (with this handle) to this board, and you have chosen to begin your relationship on this board at personal odds with me suggests that you are the one that is sad. I am here to exchange ideas, you have demonstrated that you are here soley for exchanging personal insults- I ask why? Is your life so sad and lonely that you have to fill it with imagined people? Do you feel empowered somehow?

Please, if this truly is some form of therapy, by all means, continue. I for one would never stand in the way of helping another person regain their humanity, and if I can help in some small part, well, all the better.

Don't worry TioRay, you're not alone anymore. I'll be your friend. I'll love you. You don't have to be scared anymore. You poor poor thing. See, no quotes. Does that help now? I'm not even addressing this post to anyone other than you! See how special you are, all this attention just for you! Come on everyone, show your support for TioRay, they could use a friend.

Twit.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-07-02 13:10:59

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#52 2002-07-02 16:38:29

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#53 2002-07-03 06:46:49

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#54 2002-07-03 08:32:39

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#55 2002-07-03 08:45:14

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#56 2002-07-03 09:59:33

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#57 2002-07-03 10:10:55

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#58 2002-07-03 10:25:08

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#59 2002-07-03 10:41:04

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#60 2002-07-03 10:43:23

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#61 2002-07-03 10:55:05

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#62 2002-07-03 11:31:00

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#63 2002-07-03 11:38:03

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#64 2002-07-05 07:34:52

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#65 2002-07-05 09:33:13

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#66 2002-07-11 08:55:31

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#67 2002-07-11 11:13:25

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#68 2002-07-11 13:19:15

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#69 2002-07-11 13:32:40

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#70 2002-07-11 15:23:29

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#71 2002-07-11 16:23:16

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#72 2002-07-11 17:15:02

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#73 2002-07-11 20:56:23

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#74 2002-07-12 00:24:28

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#75 2002-07-15 11:40:03

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

Board footer