Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by -1- »

GE Morton wrote:
-1- wrote:You said nothing of the sort. I am not merely regurgitating what you said. I am making inferences.
Well, the inferences you're drawing do not follow from the text you quoted.
I can't argue against that, because you did not make an argument, you just stated a claim without support.

Well, you're probably not aware that everything you say is sort of purple. (Argue against that.)

If you don't accept what I said, fine. Just remember: I established that there is a conceptual block, if you want to call it that, that prevents you to see symbiosis as a valid concept. If you don't see how your quoted post and my post relate, that is possible, seeing your stance on other topics, which is laden with an unfortunate inability of building a certain kind of mental construct. Which is symbiosis. Without internalizing that, you will never grasp the idea behind what we mean by "society".
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

-1- wrote:GE Morton wrote:
-1- wrote:
You said nothing of the sort. I am not merely regurgitating what you said. I am making inferences.

Well, the inferences you're drawing do not follow from the text you quoted.
I can't argue against that, because you did not make an argument, you just stated a claim without support.

Er, -1-, YOU are claiming to have drawn "inferences" from some text of mine, which you quoted. Thus YOU are making an argument, of which the conclusion (your inference) does not follow from the premises (my text). And of course I did make an argument, namely, that the conception of society entertained by lefties, their assumptions concerning its structure and the nature of the relationships among its members, are not validated by observation. I asked you to offer some examples of goals or interests or beliefs shared by all members of any society. So far you have offered none. If there are none, as I claim, then your conception of society is erroneous, and your hopes and expectations for it are misguided and bound to remain unrealized.
Well, you're probably not aware that everything you say is sort of purple. (Argue against that.)
Can't argue against that, since I have no idea what it means.
I established that there is a conceptual block, if you want to call it that, that prevents you to see symbiosis as a valid concept.
Symbiosis is a perfectly valid concept. But I fail to see what it has to do with the current discussion. A symbiosis between two or more organisms, BTW, does not make them an organic unity.
Without internalizing that, you will never grasp the idea behind what we mean by "society".
I understand the lefty conception of society quite well --- well enough to realize it is mythical, and not descriptive of any actual societies. I also realize that such deep-rooted myths are difficult to dispel. Their adherents tend to cling to them tenaciously, and dismiss all evidence threatening to them.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

GE Morton

Well, most people, I think, DO know where they're going, or at least, where they wish to go. And many of of them get there.



The same can be said about an elephant or gazelle on its way to a water source... :)
Ah. You're asking the wrong question. Where we're going as a species is largely out of our hands, and impossible to predict in principle --- evolution being complex adaptive system. The relevant question, and one that is answerable, is, "Where am I going as an individual?" That one is largely up to you.
I do this time and again in forgetting that we all think differently, projecting my own thought onto others as obvious. The question "Where we are going as species?" wasn't intended for exploration of human evolutionary path, although it's interesting that you interpreted it that way. Humans are the first and only sentient species on this planet that, unlike bacteria in exponential growth or mindless fungus, actually posses intellect to decide which path to take in human development... or not. After all a bird basking in the summers Sun is perfectly content without pondering the future of its kind.
- Pursuit of happiness
- Pursuit of good health
- Pursuit of not to starve or be homeless...lol



Since society is made up of individuals and most of the people I asked are in pursuit of the things I mentioned, I presumed such to be the general social goals.

-- Updated August 23rd, 2017, 11:48 pm to add the following --

Symbiosis is a perfectly valid concept. But I fail to see what it has to do with the current discussion. A symbiosis between two or more organisms, BTW, does not make them an organic unity.



What is that mean? Organic means carbon based organism...in unity.

I understand the lefty conception of society quite well --- well enough to realize it is mythical, and not descriptive of any actual societies. I also realize that such deep-rooted myths are difficult to dispel. Their adherents tend to cling to them tenaciously, and dismiss all evidence threatening to them.



I see, you examine what's being said so far from the position of resentment of "lefty" ideology on society. What I advertise is to suspend all of the political and ideological baggage aside for time being and examine the reality of "strangers" living in a given geographical area. What kind of relationship do they have, if any? How do they get food, water, electricity etc. Do they have to cooperate in any way or can each of them generate these things alone?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Gertie »

Lawskeptic wrote:The famous slogan for natural law theorists is:
"An unjust law, is not a law."
Often the above has been heavily misconstrued, so I will go with the iron-man argument: what is just/morally good ought to be law, and what is unjust ought not to be, and can't be in the real sense because law presupposes justice.
So what is justice? The idea is that moral good can be objectively determined through human reason. This is necessarily assuming that "human reason" is capable of being objective. Right? (I'm legitimately asking if I'm construing this correctly, I don't want to misinterpret the view before I even get started)

I will be arguing that "human reason" cannot be completely objective.

Let's start with an example, and take Aristotle's (a naturalist's) advice, to always ask why, instead of what.

1. Why is slavery unjust/wrong?
Potential Answer (the answers I give I think are the most convincing, you can give all sorts of answers, but ultimately the same conclusion is reached): Slavery is unjust because it inhibits liberty, potentially our own, or that of others.
2. Why do we value our liberty?
A: Because it aids in our well-being and flourishing.
3. Why do we value our well-being and flourishing?
A: Because it aids in our survival.
4. Why do we value our survival????
A: I don't know how to answer this, it's like asking ourselves what the meaning of life is, finding the answer and then asking our selves what the meaning is of that. We just value it. Almost all of us are wired to want to survive, it's why we exist, i would go so far as to say we have no choice in the matter. But, is there something inherently "good" about the survival/existence of humans in the grand scheme of the universe? Ought we, objectively speaking, exist? It's a morally neutral question, the universe doesn't care whether humans exist or not.
Objectively it's not necessary that we ought survive, so how can we say that it is we ought to uphold human well-being and liberty because they are inherently, objectively good, and out-law slavery because it is inherently bad?


I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or if I've gotten my point across. Ultimately, I agree with quite a bit of Natural Law Theory, but I just cant get on board with the idea that there is inherent bad or good outside of the human experience.
I would make the argument that slavery ought to be outlawed, not because slavery is inherently unjust/bad, it's just counter-productive to what we we want: liberty --> well-being --> survival. So slavery is bad, and liberty good, only as a consequence that treating them as such gets us to our final goal, not because they're inherently so.
What legal theory would my above reasoning fit under?
I agree with Natural Law Theory in the sense that human reason determines "good" and "bad", but i would add that human reason is subjective and we have very little choice, if any, in the matter, and so we can't say that we "ought" to do anything.
IMO the advances in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology (still at a very early stage) require us to re-think our approach to Morality. Accept that it's a man-made concept rooted in our evolved predispositions, with no independent existence, which reason or religion can lead us to. Morality as we've historically constructed it, is a useful lie, which has now been found out.

So does that mean nothing matters, anything is permissable? I'd say no, we can still have an honest and informed basis for Oughts. And it should be based on the qualiative nature of consciousness, experiential states. In other words, conscious creatures have a 'quality of life', can suffer and be happy, and everything in between. And our quality of life matters to us, and if we lose our life we have lost something that matters, because of our lives' qualiative nature. And Oughts derive from this Mattering. Harris puts it this way - the foundation for morality is 'the well-being of conscious creatures'.

Then comes the more difficult and far more complex question of how this basis for Oughts plays out in practice in our personal lives, and as a society - through laws, learning, social mores and so on. And imo there are reasons why we can never come to a perfect rule set for this, once we accept that Oughts are tied to the subjective nature of qualiative experiential states. My assessment for what would optimise my quality of life would probably have a lot in common with yours, but also differences which we'd disagree about. And some things which would optimise my quality of life, would have deleterious effects on yours (if I took all your money for example, or chose not to pay my taxes).

So in a society, we will all probably agree that some things should be enforced by law (theft, murder, etc), and others should be a matter of personal choice, individual liberty. And we use politics as our method of sorting out a rough consensus on where we draw the grey lines, in a rather ad hoc way. Taking account of our desire for individual freedom, and balancing it with our communal obligations/Oughts towards the 'common good' - the well-being of our fellow conscious creatures. It's essentially a rough n ready consensus process, rather than one based on a detailed moral rule book, or philosophical principles like natural law, deontology, virtue ethics or utilitarianism, and it mostly works out OK. Because our constructed concept of an objective independently existing morality, came out of our evolved social predispositions, we're 'designed' by evolution to flourish in cooperative groups.

But obviously it doesn't work perfectly. There is still a lot of unnecessary suffering, even wars. The problem is, our evolved social neurological mechanisms are designed for small tribal groups, to 'trigger' in up close and personal situations, rather than the vast inter-dependent societies of strangers we now live in. Which means we need a touchstone foundational principle like 'the well-being of conscious creatures' for guidance, to overcome some of our evolved pre-dispositions which simply don't work, or work against us, in the modern world. We need to expand that guiding principle beyond our tribal proclivities.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

Gertie
Gertie wrote: So does that mean nothing matters, anything is permissable? I'd say no, we can still have an honest and informed basis for Oughts. And it should be based on the qualiative nature of consciousness, experiential states. In other words, conscious creatures have a 'quality of life', can suffer and be happy, and everything in between. And our quality of life matters to us, and if we lose our life we have lost something that matters, because of our lives' qualiative nature. And Oughts derive from this Mattering. Harris puts it this way - the foundation for morality is 'the well-being of conscious creatures'.
Why does life matter?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Gertie »

Ranvier wrote:Gertie
Gertie wrote: So does that mean nothing matters, anything is permissable? I'd say no, we can still have an honest and informed basis for Oughts. And it should be based on the qualiative nature of consciousness, experiential states. In other words, conscious creatures have a 'quality of life', can suffer and be happy, and everything in between. And our quality of life matters to us, and if we lose our life we have lost something that matters, because of our lives' qualiative nature. And Oughts derive from this Mattering. Harris puts it this way - the foundation for morality is 'the well-being of conscious creatures'.
Why does life matter?
As I tried to explain, the life of a conscious creature like you or me matters, because consciousness has this qualiative nature. Very simply, it 'feels like something' to be me and you, and that can feel good bad, painful, sad, happy, content, etc. We experience a 'quality of life', unlike a tree or a rock or a toaster or a mindless robot (as far as we know). So a universe devoid of conscious critters like ourselves would have no foundation for Oughts, as there would be no consequences in terms of quality of life/experience. A universe devoid of experiencing beings would just be 'stuff' interacting.

And when you die, the thing you lose which matters, is the ability to have a quality of life - you lose the ability to have qualiative experiential states (as far as we know). If my body still functioned and I was irreversibly brain dead, you might as well switch my body's life support off, because nothing that matters is being lost then, it's already gone.

This also has implications for how we treat other conscious species. Their quality of life matters too under my formulation, tho what makes for a good quality of life for one species wouldn't be the same as another, so our Oughts would be different, commensurate.

Does that make sense?
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

Gertie

Do you think that explanation answers the question?

I may care about the quality of my life, and because I'm selfish I care about the quality of lives of my family, friends, and those who are of benefit to me. Everyone else, who may infringe on my quality of life shouldn't mind if they are painlessly removed from my existence to parish without regrets.

Am I following the logic correctly?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

Gertie wrote:IMO the advances in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology (still at a very early stage) require us to re-think our approach to Morality. Accept that it's a man-made concept rooted in our evolved predispositions, with no independent existence, which reason or religion can lead us to. Morality as we've historically constructed it, is a useful lie, which has now been found out.
A few questions and quibbles. I'm not sure how advances in neuroscience or evolutionary psychology, whether those in hand or those to come, bear on our approach to morality, which, as you suggest below, develops via a "rough and ready consensus process." I.e., through social experience. Perhaps you can give an example of some breakthrough in neuroscience which might prompt us to reconsider our views (whatever they may be ) on, say, affirmative action or capital punishment.

I'd also quibble with your claim that morality, while a man-made concept to be sure, is "rooted in our evolved predispositions." Of course, if you mean what I call "vernacular morality," i.e., the moralities actually embraced, at least verbally, and inconsistently followed by the majority of people, your claim there is not too far off the mark. But when I think of moralities I have in mind the moral systems proffered by philosophers over the centuries, most of which at least make the effort to construct systems that are coherent, consistent, and grounded in observable features of the human situation. E.g., Aristotle's ethics, the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, Kant's ethics, and even Sam Harris's (to whom you refer below). Generally speaking, our "evolved predispositions" are what these moral systems are designed to overcome (as you righly suggest below).

It is true that moralities are constructs of the human mind, and have no existence independent of those minds, but neither does any other theory. Quantum theory has no existence independent of human minds either. Of course, the subject matter of that latter theory, the physical universe, would continue to exist in the absence of human minds (we presume). But if human minds ceased to exist then not only moral theories, but their subject matter --- human societies --- would also cease to exist. Double whammy!

But moral theories are no more or less "real" or useful than theories in any other field of inquiry, and can be just as sound --- if, that is, we construct those theories using the same schema and methodology we use to construct scientific theories, and hold them to the same standards.

And surely morality or moral theories per se are not "lies," misguided though some of them they may be. I suppose you could fairly call moralities that purport to be "handed down from God," or are true a priori, "lies," but most of them, at worst, are just mistaken in some way.

To be sure, the concept of morality as widely understood (even by philosophers) covers way too much ground. Perhaps the biggest source of confusion and incoherence is the conflation of axiology (the theory of value, or "the good") with deontology, or the theory of the "right." Those are two distinct fields of inquiry, which need to be separated before sound theories can be constructed for either. Then deontology itself must be unpacked, separating rules for personal success or "living the good life" from rules governing interpersonal relations in a moral field (i.e., a social setting), that is, distinguishing "private moralities" from "public moralities."

An optimum public morality, as I see it, is a set of rules governing interactions between moral agents (who are presumed to have equal status) in a moral field which maximizes the good, as each agent defines it, for all agents. Any such theory will be empirically testable (as any sound theory must be) by observing the results of applying the theory's rules.
Harris puts it this way - the foundation for morality is 'the well-being of conscious creatures'.
I agree with Harris in that particular. His mistake, however, is failing to appreciate how diverse and variable the requirements for well-being are for different agents. There are no "objective," universal, goods.
And imo there are reasons why we can never come to a perfect rule set for this, once we accept that Oughts are tied to the subjective nature of qualiative experiential states. My assessment for what would optimise my quality of life would probably have a lot in common with yours, but also differences which we'd disagree about. And some things which would optimise my quality of life, would have deleterious effects on yours (if I took all your money for example, or chose not to pay my taxes).
Yes indeed.
But obviously it doesn't work perfectly. There is still a lot of unnecessary suffering, even wars. [em]The problem is, our evolved social neurological mechanisms are designed for small tribal groups, to 'trigger' in up close and personal situations, rather than the vast inter-dependent societies of strangers we now live in. [/em] Which means we need a touchstone foundational principle like 'the well-being of conscious creatures' for guidance, to overcome some of our evolved pre-dispositions which simply don't work, or work against us, in the modern world. We need to expand that guiding principle beyond our tribal proclivities.
I posted a portion of an essay of mine on that topic on this forum a while back. Sounds like you read it!

-- Updated August 24th, 2017, 10:41 pm to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:The same can be said about an elephant or gazelle on its way to a water source... :)
Yes. The goals humans set for themselves, however, are rather more varied, abstract, and less strongly driven by biological imperatives.
I do this time and again in forgetting that we all think differently, projecting my own thought onto others as obvious. The question "Where we are going as species?" wasn't intended for exploration of human evolutionary path, although it's interesting that you interpreted it that way. Humans are the first and only sentient species on this planet that, unlike bacteria in exponential growth or mindless fungus, actually posses intellect to decide which path to take in human development... or not.
Well, we may have the intellect to make such decisions, but, unfortunately, probably not the intellect to do it well, or the wisdom to refrain from it. Humans' efforts to plan large scale social structures (e.g., urban planning, economic planning, "social engineering," etc.), are invariably short-sighted, counterproductive, and sometimes disastrous. I shiver at the thought of the course of human development being forced to follow some witless plan devised by pretentious, megalomanic Utopians and bureaucrats.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. What are some of these paths you would have human development take? And how would you steer development onto these paths?
Since society is made up of individuals and most of the people I asked are in pursuit of the things I mentioned, I presumed such to be the general social goals.
No. They are only the goals of those individuals, not "social goals" in the sense of "society's goals."
What is that mean? Organic means carbon based organism...in unity.
"Organic" also means, "like an organism," which is a system composed of discreet component parts, all of which must function properly in order for the system to function:

"1: a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole

' . . .the nation is not merely the sum of individual citizens at any given time, but it is a living organism, a mystical body … of which the individual is an ephemeral part — Joseph Rossi'"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organism

I left that example in there because it exemplifies the "organic fallacy" that societies are organisms. But Mr Rossi redeems himself by admitting it is a "mystical body."
What I advertise is to suspend all of the political and ideological baggage aside for time being and examine the reality of "strangers" living in a given geographical area. What kind of relationship do they have, if any? How do they get food, water, electricity etc. Do they have to cooperate in any way or can each of them generate these things alone?
Those are empirical questions than can be answered by observing. They have many types of relationships, different types with different people, and with most, no relationship of any kind, other than the geographical one. And of course they cooperate --- each cooperates with those others whom he believes can augment his own efforts in pursuit of some interest he shares with those persons.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

The Natural Law and Natural Rights Theory

- Awareness
- Consciousness
- Physical vs Psychological pain
- Good vs Evil
- Right vs Wrong
- Conscience
- Soul and spirit
- Values, Ethics, Morality

Let there be light can be taken quite literally in duality of matter (energy) as particle and wave. Without indulging in the perspective of multiple dimensions of our 3D universe (+ theoretical spacetime with possible 9 dimensions or more in total), one can imagine the uGenesis of our Universe and the “beginning of time” of physical reality, as a “choice” of energy to become two different states to begin the passage of time.

If one can imagine a white marble (particle) in “space”, there can’t be any function (spinning, twisting, moving etc.) performed on that marble that would mark the passage of time without anything else present relative to the marble. Until such marble becomes two different “marbles” without quantum possibility of being the “same” within all dimensions because it would become once again as one to stop the passage of time.

These are the two states of particle-wave (matter), where one must be better than the other under a specific set of circumstances. At such point there is no “good” or “evil” but better than the other, where in the principle of cause and effect the two states diverge in becoming “better” from the previous state. There appear to be two “Absolute” principles not only for the Universe but evolution of life as well. The first principle states that the Universe and matter continues to become more complex with “time” increasing in complexity of dimensions and natural “laws of Physics”. In the second principle one can conclude that increase in complexity is “better” (Multiple generations of Supernova for matter to form more complex atoms), where inanimate matter becomes life because it’s better in ability to respond to the external environment. The inherent “Sin” of all life is the desire to exist in a physical reality to become better than the other, with inevitable emergence of self-awareness that is even better in responding to the “stimulus” of the external environment. Naturally, even better is the birth of a sentient consciousness that not only can affect itself but also manipulate the external environment to change the circumstances of its own existence, which also marks the birth of the concept of “good” and “evil” in the consciousness of selfish perspective of being better than the other in desire for self-preservation.

With understanding of these “Absolute” principles of our Universe, one can deduce that not only life but sentient beings are inevitable in other parts of the Universe. It should also imply that our Universe is part of another “Absolute” reality of nonphysical expression of energy. This also helps us to understand the evolution of life on our planet to evolve human that can begin to examine this physical reality. One can imagine the early prehistoric human in first attempt to ponder his own existence, formulating for the first time “his” subjective concept of good vs evil from perception of pain and pleasure evident in early pictographic language. As human continued to evolve in complexity of human brain, stimulated by value to his survival from complexity of hierarchy in cooperation with others of his kind in tribal early social structure, our ancestors developed a more complex spoken language that must of used terms such as “right” and “wrong” things to do in the threat to his survival and others. In his growing intellect, the early human confronted by liberating yet perplexing finite concepts of birth and death, deduced that his actions may lead to sorrow of psychological pain in grieving from loss of those he cared for killed in conflict, giving birth to conscience and early social tribal morality.

One can also imagine that the early human confronted by the beauty of Sunset yet terrified by the awesome power of nature in thunderstorms and fury of the ocean, must had concluded that no other human could be capable of such creation giving rise to the concept of power he called God. Tormented by the harshness of nature in beauty and pain of pleasure and fear, he attributed such phenomena of nature to his actions in appeasement and anger of gods. It wasn’t until about 3000 thousand years ago with Judaism that “men” arrived to the first Monotheistic faith in a single God but it was with Christianity that brought the “purpose” of human virtue in universal morality in aspiration for eternal life.

Ethics are the deliberations about actions of an individual, whereas Morality is a human concept in regards to human interaction within a social group in context of Religion. The concept of morality stems from such religious convictions that all life, especially human life is sacred in holding a unique consciousness and “soul” or “spirit” that is able to tune in to the divine. Such morality presupposes the “Natural Rights” of every sentient being. However, the contemporary dilettantes having a copious “lick” of science organize in a movement of contemptuous “teenage rebellion” rejecting the old “superstitions” acquired over millennia of human wisdom in attempt to formulate a new “better” way to conceptualize morality.

The question becomes what would be the bases for the value of life within the new philosophy on morality in human interaction?

This is of course given that one deems morality to be useful for human interaction in a social group. As a pretentious megalomaniac conceded in his own power of intellect in utopian pursuit for humanity to become “better”, I would like to focus on the conception of Pluracracy framework that despises a bureaucratic inclination of a totalitarian system but is more “organic” (thank you GE for clarification of the term) in return to human factions based on the natural human psychological needs, with efficiency and fairness to all individuals within each faction rather than the needs of the “society”. This stems from the conviction that human civilizations developed too quickly in exponential growth of population with morality centered around the social needs rather than the quality of individual human life, extricating many individuals to the realm of unemployed, homeless, and devolving below the level of dignity for human consciousness. Every human should be able to become fulfilled in their quality of life and personal growth that in turn would make the society as a whole better. Essentially, society can only be better if it consists of individuals in smaller Factions of alignment based on choice of cooperation according to skills and genetic predisposition. I’m still working on this “utopian” system but the presumption is that every human action can be considered as “work” including typing thoughts into sentences or anything that brings joy to individual life, in conviction that Homo sapiens can evolve to become better.

-- Updated August 25th, 2017, 4:41 am to add the following --

...Although I realize that I must devote more time to introspect, since my posts are viewed by several people on this forum as pretentious, ignorantly uninformed, and delusional in utopian nature. Humbling.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ranvier:
...Although I realize that I must devote more time to introspect, since my posts are viewed by several people on this forum as pretentious, ignorantly uninformed, and delusional in utopian nature. Humbling.
Just for the record, Ran, I for one do not regard your posts as pretentious. I have no idea whether you're pretending to be something and, since I don't know the real you anyway, it doesn't make much difference. My only criticism is that I struggle to understand what you're trying to say and I therefore seek clarification by examining them sentence by sentence and asking you what you mean by various words that you use. If I don't understand you, what else ought I to do?

-- Updated Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:29 am to add the following --

I'm happy to admit that it may be me that is at fault for my inadequate mastery of the English language. But if you would consent to take some friendly advice, I suggest that you try to construct your sentences with the following in mind:

1. Use words consistently.
2. Use words according to their standard definitions and, if you wish to use your own definition of a word, state what that definition is.
3. Try to make coherent statements.

Take, for example, the first sentence of your previous post:
Let there be light can be taken quite literally in duality of matter (energy) as particle and wave.
As a result of its structure, it is unclear (at least to me) what this sentence is trying to state. It starts by quoting the well known Biblical phrase "let there be light" which is usually attributed to God. It then appears to propose a literal (as opposed to figurative or metaphorical) meaning of that phrase. OK, so far so good. I would then expect its structure to go something like this:

"Let there be light" can be taken quite literally to mean X. (Where X = the proposed meaning.)

But instead it finishes with "...in duality of matter (energy) as particle and wave". So at the first sentence I'm already starting to get confused as to what you mean, and there are loads more sentences to grapple with. Do you mean the following?

"Let there be light" can be taken quite literally to mean that matter is both a particle and a wave, and that energy is the same thing as matter.

If so, I don't see how you could possible get all of that from "let there be light". It sounds like someone just wants there to be some light.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

Fair enough... I will take you suggestions under advisement.

What I propose in that sentence, is that "let there be light" is the beginning of the passage of "time" within our "physical reality" of "light", which is the "change" between the particle and wave states that we can only perceive and measure as a "mixture" of particle-wave. Otherwise we can't experience energy that "exists" outside of our perception in other dimensions. You're a physicist so it should be easy for us to "agree" that any object is not really a solid "mass" as most humans perceive it to be but a constant change in the "properties" of subatomic particles with vast amount of "empty space" in between. Time can only be perceived by us in a subjective perception of "change", limited by our senses, as well as our scientific instruments that are also subject to the same laws of physics as the matter that makes up our physical form. However, "Energy" exists in other states (ex. dark energy and dark matter).

My humble suggestion to you, is to ask for an explanation of words used in a specific context, as in "tube" or "tool" which may mean different things. But refrain in telling people that you don't understand their language, as it would be silly for me to say that to Shakespeare.
It may come across as condescending ;)
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ranvier:
What I propose in that sentence, is that "let there be light" is the beginning of the passage of "time" within our "physical reality" of "light", which is the "change" between the particle and wave states that we can only perceive and measure as a "mixture" of particle-wave. Otherwise we can't experience energy that "exists" outside of our perception in other dimensions.
No, sorry. I still don't know what you mean. I'm reasonable sure that you're saying that time started when the sentence "let there be light" was uttered. But I don't understand what you're trying to say about particles and waves and experiencing energy in other dimensions. Possibly you're trying to suggest that before the sentence "let there be light" was uttered light was just a particle or just a wave and after that event it was a mixture. Possibly. Very difficult to tell for sure.
But refrain in telling people that you don't understand their language, as it would be silly for me to say that to Shakespeare.
Unlike Shakespeare, you are a speaker of modern English, as am I. We both theorectically speak the same language.

If I can't understand what you're trying to say but I am not allowed to state that fact then sadly it is impossible to have a conversation so I will have to leave it there. I wish you well.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

Well Steve, that's fine if you don't understand because no parson on the planet can describe the exact moment of the theoretical Big Bang, where one could imagine that "time" began. Perhaps it's the concept of "time" that is in question, not sure but I don't know how else to discuss time other than the "change" between two states of matter (I don't know, the decay of radioactive material? Would that be better?) We keep running into the same problem where you are uneasy about a certain "word" or in this case "let there be light". Since you are a teacher of physics (presumption), duality of light shouldn't be a problem as well as the duality of all matter. You are also aware of the theoretical fourth dimension of spacetime and I'm sure you are aware of the string theory as well, that proposes multiple dimensions...that shouldn't be a problem. I'm also convinced that you are knowledgeable in the Quantum theory and the statistical probabilities of "choice" in the path taken by particle-waves (ex. the double slit experiment) or just the fact that energy is quantized... that shouldn't be a problem either.

Therefore, the only problem you seem to have is in the usage of "let there be light" that surly requires imagination to visualize "stuff" appear out of the darkness of "empty space" or whatever comes to your mind as the Big Bang. Personally I think Big Bang is a rather silly term so I used uGenesis instead. Therefore, even though theoretically we speak the same language, I don't know what other words I can use to remedy the failure in communication?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ranvier:
Well Steve, that's fine if you don't understand because no parson on the planet can describe the exact moment of the theoretical Big Bang, where one could imagine that "time" began.
You seem to misunderstand what it is that I don't understand. I'm not talking about my lack of understanding of standard physics or cosmology here. I don't understand what you are trying to say. I thought I'd made that clear in my previous posts. In post #42, I suggested some things that you might possibly be trying to say:

Steve3007:
Possibly you're trying to suggest that before the sentence "let there be light" was uttered light was just a particle or just a wave and after that event it was a mixture. Possibly. Very difficult to tell for sure.
Ranvier:
We keep running into the same problem where you are uneasy about a certain "word" or in this case "let there be light". Since you are a teacher of physics (presumption), duality of light shouldn't be a problem as well as the duality of all matter.
The fact that the properties of light are best modeled by using a combination of wave and particle like concepts is well known, but that fact is not the issue. The issue is what you are trying to say.

I'll try to ask you again what you mean. When you say this:
What I propose in that sentence, is that "let there be light" is the beginning of the passage of "time" within our "physical reality" of "light", which is the "change" between the particle and wave states that we can only perceive and measure as a "mixture" of particle-wave.
Are you proposing that the utterance "let there be light" caused time to begin? Are you also proposing that it caused some kind of "change between particle and wave states"? If so, do you understand what physicists mean when they talk about particles and waves in the context of light? If not, what are you saying?
I don't know what other words I can use to remedy the failure in communication?
I suggest using the same words but putting them together into coherent grammatically correct sentences which make propositions that can be tested. Also, if you want to make use of the idea that light has some properties that are reminiscent of waves and others that are reminiscent of particles, I suggest that you do some reading about the experimental results and associated theories that led physicists to propose this idea, so as to understand more precisely what they mean by it.

Any popular text on quantum physics would do.

On this website, here are a couple of topics that have dealt with it in the past:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 85#p232485

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 99#p110699

I hope that helps.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

Ranvier wrote:Ethics are the deliberations about actions of an individual, whereas Morality is a human concept in regards to human interaction within a social group in context of Religion.
Among philosophers the two terms are essentially synonymous, although "ethics" is more often used in common speech to denote rules for special fields, e.g., "medical ethics," "legal ethics," "business ethics," etc.
The concept of morality stems from such religious convictions that all life, especially human life is sacred in holding a unique consciousness and “soul” or “spirit” that is able to tune in to the divine. Such morality presupposes the “Natural Rights” of every sentient being.
No. The concept does not and did not spring from that source; it arose from the practical need for rules governing interactions between moral agents in a civilized social setting (a non-kinship, non-tribal social setting). The various religions merely sought to justify their preferred sets of rules by appeal to divine authority.
The question becomes what would be the bases for the value of life within the new philosophy on morality in human interaction?
Values --- including the value of human life --- have no basis, in the sense of being derived from, or dependent upon, something else more fundamental. They are sui generis, inexplicable, and idiosyncratic. To say that something has value is merely to say that someone desires it and would give up something --- time, effort, money --- to acquire it or retain it. What one would give up to obtain a desired thing is the measure of its value to him. Value is not a property of things; it is a relation between a person, the valuer, and a thing --- the relation of being desired by that person. You need rules of interaction between moral agents in a social setting to assure that Alfie's pursuit of X does not interfere with Bruno's pursuit of Y. The rules of a sound public morality serve a purpose similar to traffic rules --- to allow all drivers to get where they're going in one piece, without crashes. They don't presume to dictate where anyone is going or what routes they must take.
Every human should be able to become fulfilled in their quality of life and personal growth that in turn would make the society as a whole better.
That is impossible in principle.
I’m still working on this “utopian” system but the presumption is that every human action can be considered as “work” including typing thoughts into sentences or anything that brings joy to individual life . . .
It might be "work" in some sense, but unless it results in a product or service deemed valuable by others, who will give up something to obtain it, it will not be "work" in the economic sense.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021