Was Judas the first Liberal?

[Sy Borg]

Sy

Each life is a pattern - a way of doing things. If one falls by the wayside, another takes its place.

Do you mean that each person is a machine. A car is a machine and we can know what a car does and what its purpose is for Man. But if each person is a pattern - a way of doing things like a machine, what is the purpose of this machine?

Absolutely not! machines are a poor analogy for life - at least at this stage. I expect the line between machines and life to blur ever more, but at this stage the machine analogy ignores the internality.

Still, life is eminently expendable. We all come and in the blink of a cosmic eye. Larger structures - the form of things - are more durable. In each community of humans (or other entities) there will always be dominants, prey/food, catalysts, entropic agents, and so forth. Such hierarchies were even present in the protoplanetary disc (the Sun is the monarch, planets are dominants, moons are subordinates, etc). Our "eternal" aspect lies in the type we represent rather than the temporal physical self.

The purpose of life on Earth? That's rather open to speculation.

Not sure if it is a purpose, but I note the planet's, or biosphere's, growth to what some would call consider to be random outcomes, others would call certain doom, but I would suggest that the biosphere is moving into maturity. The biosphere as a whole is restructuring itself (via humans) into a reproductive phase, where packets of Earthly information are sent out into space (as per the Genesis Project). When the minibots land on other worlds, they can follow pre-programmed instructions to convert local materials into useful Earthlike structures.

One could say that that earth is going to seed. After all, in a relatively short time, by geographical standards, the ageing Sun will have expanded and rendered the Earth's surface uninhabitable.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Each life is a pattern - a way of doing things. If one falls by the wayside, another takes its place.

Do you mean that each person is a machine. A car is a machine and we can know what a car does and what its purpose is for Man. But if each person is a pattern - a way of doing things like a machine, what is the purpose of this machine?

Absolutely not! machines are a poor analogy for life - at least at this stage. I expect the line between machines and life to blur ever more, but at this stage the machine analogy ignores the internality.

Still, life is eminently expendable. We all come and in the blink of a cosmic eye. Larger structures - the form of things - are more durable. In each community of humans (or other entities) there will always be dominants, prey/food, catalysts, entropic agents, and so forth. Such hierarchies were even present in the protoplanetary disc (the Sun is the monarch, planets are dominants, moons are subordinates, etc). Our "eternal" aspect lies in the type we represent rather than the temporal physical self.

The purpose of life on Earth? That's rather open to speculation.

Not sure if it is a purpose, but I note the planet's, or biosphere's, growth to what some would call consider to be random outcomes, others would call certain doom, but I would suggest that the biosphere is moving into maturity. The biosphere as a whole is restructuring itself (via humans) into a reproductive phase, where packets of Earthly information are sent out into space (as per the Genesis Project). When the minibots land on other worlds, they can follow pre-programmed instructions to convert local materials into useful Earthlike structures.

One could say that that earth is going to seed. After all, in a relatively short time, by geographical standards, the ageing Sun will have expanded and rendered the Earth's surface uninhabitable.

You are still describing a machine. Is a human being only a machine reacting to external conditions existing in Plato's Cave? This is the problem the Christ came to our planet to deal with and Mary understood.

[Steve3007]

So obviously I have to ask: Why do you yourself keep arguing details?

You started a topic based on the falsehood that abortions of at-term babies is a thing in our societies, so that you could extrapolate from that to infanticide, and on to genocide. And since then you've kept coming back to that specific topic of abortion, with various sarcastic and satirical comments. If you wanted to dispense with details and look at broad principles (which I agree is one of the defining features of philosophical discussions as opposed to discussions on particular subjects) why not talk about the broader principle of what it means to value life? In a discussion like that, you'd have to examine such things as what we mean by both "value" and "life".

Actually when I refer to abortion it is to prove a larger point which Socrates admitted to when he said: I know nothing.

Our hypocrisy concerning respect for life is proof. We cannot explain abortions of convenience other than through ignorance of the whole life process from conception through death...

To try to defend a comment like that, you'd need to be clearer about what "respect for life" actually means to you. As I've said to you before, it clearly doesn't simply mean refraining from killing living things. You kill, and conspire in the killing of, living things, for your own convenience and pleasure, all the time. So do I. So, given that it doesn't mean refraining from killing for convenience, what does it mean to you?

[Nick_A]

So obviously I have to ask: Why do you yourself keep arguing details?

You started a topic based on the falsehood that abortions of at-term babies is a thing in our societies, so that you could extrapolate from that to infanticide, and on to genocide. And since then you've kept coming back to that specific topic of abortion, with various sarcastic and satirical comments. If you wanted to dispense with details and look at broad principles (which I agree is one of the defining features of philosophical discussions as opposed to discussions on particular subjects) why not talk about the broader principle of what it means to value life? In a discussion like that, you'd have to examine such things as what we mean by both "value" and "life".

Actually when I refer to abortion it is to prove a larger point which Socrates admitted to when he said: I know nothing.

Our hypocrisy concerning respect for life is proof. We cannot explain abortions of convenience other than through ignorance of the whole life process from conception through death...

To try to defend a comment like that, you'd need to be clearer about what "respect for life" actually means to you. As I've said to you before, it clearly doesn't simply mean refraining from killing living things. You kill, and conspire in the killing of, living things, for your own convenience and pleasure, all the time. So do I. So, given that it doesn't mean refraining from killing for convenience, what does it mean to you?

Quite true. People argue modern philosophy and political justifiction. But what is objective respect for life? Buddhism suggests that "Life is dear to all beings. They have the right to live the same as we do." We should respect all life and not kill anything. Killing ants and mosquitoes is also breaking this precept. We should have an attitude of loving-kindness towards all beings, wishing them to be happy and free from harm. But a fly is a nuisance and can contaminate food. Bug sprays kill the insects which destroy re crops. Why not kill them?

Clearly there is more to it than superficial feel good answers. The real question beneath respect for life asks "what is the purpose of life?" If we don't know that, why respect it and help it to become what it can? The abortion question shows how people are incapable of philosophy as the love of wisdom. People prefer pragmatism and the belief that the purpose of life is to serve Man's convenience. The philosopher asks what the purpose of life is. Find me a philosopher who can answer my questions. They are hard to find. They are a very rare breed.

[Steve3007]

People prefer pragmatism and the belief that the purpose of life is to serve Man's convenience.

As I said, you also prefer that pragmatism, and kill for convenience. So do I. So I'll ask again:

Given that it [respect for life] doesn't mean refraining from killing for convenience, what does it mean to you?

To some people it might mean respect for those living things they judge to be capable of creating their own purposes for their lives; of having hopes and dreams, so to speak. So, on that basis, the killing of a fly, for example, would be judged less harshly than the killing of a human being, because it's assumed that the fly's hopes and dreams are pretty limited. They might subscribe to the idea that creatures with hopes and dreams should be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end - a categorical imperative. What do you think of that, for example?

[Nick_A]

People prefer pragmatism and the belief that the purpose of life is to serve Man's convenience.

As I said, you also prefer that pragmatism, and kill for convenience. So do I. So I'll ask again:

Given that it [respect for life] doesn't mean refraining from killing for convenience, what does it mean to you?

To some people it might mean respect for those living things they judge to be capable of creating their own purposes for their lives; of having hopes and dreams, so to speak. So, on that basis, the killing of a fly, for example, would be judged less harshly than the killing of a human being, because it's assumed that the fly's hopes and dreams are pretty limited. They might subscribe to the idea that creatures with hopes and dreams should be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end - a categorical imperative. What do you think of that, for example?

So select educated human beings should judge the value of life and if it is worthy of respect

"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." ~ Simone Weil

Would you agree this is the modern way to decide this deeply philosophical question and decides which lives are worthy of respect.

[Sy Borg]

Did Judas perform abortions? I hear that he uses a pizza shop as a front for a major paedo ring and that he puts the meat of little children on his Super Supreme.

Why do pro-lifer types worry more for a foetus that knows no relationships, love or care than for children and teens who have been neglected by their harsh political ideologies. These ideologies ignore the fact that societies NEED a constant pool of unemployed people to keep inflation under control and thus welfare payments for the needy are not only warranted, but morally required.

Poverty kills many, but they apparently are of even less worth than embryos.

[Steve3007]

So select educated human beings should judge the value of life and if it is worthy of respect

I disagree.

You wrote that below a quote of my previous post. Did you think it relevant to something in that post? If so, which part? Where did I talk about select educated human being judging the value of others' lives? I can't spot it.

"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." ~ Simone Weil

Would you agree this is the modern way to decide this deeply philosophical question and decides which lives are worthy of respect.

With regard specifically to human lives, in our societies, no, I don't agree. In general, over the last few decades, the Kantian notion of treating people as ends in themselves that I referenced in my previous post has resulted in the idea of basic human rights being enshrined in international agreements/laws. Obviously the success of enforcing those laws is limited, and the notion of individual human rights is not universally accepted.

With regard to life more generally - other animal life - clearly those lives are treated by us as commodities - as a means to such things as a non-essential but tasty meal and not as an end in themselves. As I've said a few times, you and I both treat the lives of other animals as existing for our convenience. So, despite asking a few times now, I'm still none the wiser as to what exactly you mean by "respect for life". I suppose I have to guess that you're implicitly only talking about humans and human embryos. I guess I have to assume that, for example, you value the continued existence of a one-celled human embryo more highly than the continued existence of, for example, an entire species of sentient but not human creatures? Am I wrong to assume that?

[Steve3007]

Why do pro-lifer types worry more for a foetus that knows no relationships, love or care than for children and teens who have been neglected by their harsh political ideologies. These ideologies ignore the fact that societies NEED a constant pool of unemployed people to keep inflation under control and thus welfare payments for the needy are not only warranted, but morally required.

Poverty kills many, but they apparently are of even less worth than embryos.

I guess the pedant's answer would be that pro-lifer types worry about foetuses because that's the definition of a pro-lifer type. But it is interesting to think why being in a particular category of right-wing religious types almost always seems to go with being a pro-lifer; obsessing about the lives of human embryos and foetues, while, in a lot of cases, talking gleefully of exterminating the lives of various fully formed humans. Not to mention fully formed members of other species. So clearly it's nothing to do with "respect for life" as such. I suppose it's partly related to the notion that innocence is directly associated with youth. So the younger, the more innocent. So a one day old embryo is well innocent.

[Nick_A]

Steve

So, despite asking a few times now, I'm still none the wiser as to what exactly you mean by "respect for life".

I have said that we cannot have a non hypocritical respect for life without understanding the purpose for life. Why does life exist in the universe; what necessary purpose does it serve?

There are two possible answers. The first is that there is no purpose for life in the universe or human life on earth. There is no reason to respect the process of life from birth thru death since it is a meaningless accident. That being the case it is reasonable to use life for our pragmatic purposes. "Might makes right."

The second possibility is that the universe and functioning life within it is a conscious creation initiated by a conscious source for a necessary purpose of which Man is a part of. Plato alluded to it as the GOOD.

If the process of life spanning conception till death serves a purpose Man is still ignorant of, it may be possible that Man will still eventually become able to inwardly experience the purpose of life serving a higher purpose and strive to be a part of it. Respect for life will just be the norm.

Right now Man as a whole only recognizes the value of life in relation to our convenience. I am suggesting that Man in the future may come to feel the objective purpose of life. Einstein called such a person the "cosmic Man"

My guess is that life has no objective purpose for you so its value can only be determined by a person's subjective opinion. Is that true?

[Steve3007]

I have said that we cannot have a non hypocritical respect for life without understanding the purpose for life. Why does life exist in the universe; what necessary purpose does it serve?1

Yes, you have said that. But you still haven't said what you mean by "respect for life". As I've said several times now, it obviously doesn't mean not destroying it for convenience, because you do so regularly. Are you saying that you, yourself have no respect for life?

[Nick_A]

I have said that we cannot have a non hypocritical respect for life without understanding the purpose for life. Why does life exist in the universe; what necessary purpose does it serve?1

Yes, you have said that. But you still haven't said what you mean by "respect for life". As I've said several times now, it obviously doesn't mean not destroying it for convenience, because you do so regularly. Are you saying that you, yourself have no respect for life?

For those who believe the universe is a necessary creation by a conscious source, respect for life is the recognition that all life has a reason to be. The ouroboros is a symbol of the universe eating itself as a necessary life process.

Is an individual tree worthy of life? It depends on the context. Is a forest a necessity? It is as long as there is a planet for it to exist on. Sometimes the good of the forest requires some trees must die

When I swat a fly I'm not attacking insects as a whole. Flies like all organic life are suppose to die as food since their energy feeds the earth. Value lies in my attitude. Can my respect for life include respect for the death of the living? Do I hate the fly or respect its reason to be as part of a larger whole even if I don't understand it?

A fetus is part of the cyclical human life process from conception to death Which most have never contemplated. What is its purpose in the context of a universal process? I thought that some in a philosophy forum would have a satisfying answer for the question of purpose. I have yet to meet this person.

Of course Jesus understood the purpose of life. Mary understood which is why she poured the nard on him. Judas had to voluntarily sacrifice his higher understanding to do what Jesus needed him to do.

This is all hard to understand but a person can come to experience that life has a conscious purpose and Man within nature has the potential for a conscious purpose in addition to his animal purpose to participate in it.

[Sy Borg]

Why do pro-lifer types worry more for a foetus that knows no relationships, love or care than for children and teens who have been neglected by their harsh political ideologies. These ideologies ignore the fact that societies NEED a constant pool of unemployed people to keep inflation under control and thus welfare payments for the needy are not only warranted, but morally required.

Poverty kills many, but they apparently are of even less worth than embryos.

I guess the pedant's answer would be that pro-lifer types worry about foetuses because that's the definition of a pro-lifer type. But it is interesting to think why being in a particular category of right-wing religious types almost always seems to go with being a pro-lifer; obsessing about the lives of human embryos and foetues, while, in a lot of cases, talking gleefully of exterminating the lives of various fully formed humans. Not to mention fully formed members of other species. So clearly it's nothing to do with "respect for life" as such. I suppose it's partly related to the notion that innocence is directly associated with youth. So the younger, the more innocent. So a one day old embryo is well innocent.

Yes, the notion of "pro life" is a misnomer, a politicised slogan. I agree, such advocates generally display zero respect for life outside of the womb.

Thing is, a foetus has never loved, never cared about anything. It has no awareness, no sense of self, no friendships, no interests. Early on, they barely even have a nervous system. If that is great innocence, then what of all the innocent animals that "pro-lifers" never advocate to save?

Nick, in his response to you noted that:

Is an individual tree worthy of life? It depends on the context.

Are the poor unworthy of life if they cannot afford quality healthcare? Are the poor who cannot afford to eat unworthy of life, with justice being served a la the prosperity gospel?

If fundamentalists truly prioritised the lives of the unborn over the lives of the born, then they would be strong environmentalists, hoping to make for a better world. But they care less for the unborn than than do for using foetuses as political footballs, mere devices used to promote division and to control women.

Judas was not known to perform abortions; at worst he was a petty thief. Whatever, of course he is a mythical figure, a synecdoche of an archetypal betrayer just as Jesus is a synecdoche for an archetypal ideal human. Even so, abortions are not related to the topic, unless we find evidence for Judas performing abortions or equivalent.

[Steve3007]

Yes, you have said that. But you still haven't said what you mean by "respect for life"...

For those who believe the universe is a necessary creation by a conscious source, respect for life is the recognition that all life has a reason to be. The ouroboros is a symbol of the universe eating itself as a necessary life process.

OK. That's fair enough. So naturally the proposition that all life has an objectively existing reason to be doesn't, in itself, tell us anything about the rights and wrongs of how individual instances of life ought to be treated. The one thing that it probably does say is that it would be objectively wrong for all life to be extinguished. I guess it might also be interpreted as saying that it would be objectively wrong for the vast diversity of life to be significantly reduced by the destruction of large numbers of entire species. But, to me at least, it says nothing on the question of the destruction of individual instances of life for purposes other than the preservation of another individual instance of life. (i.e. purposes that in our conversation we're calling "convenience", such as abortion of embryos and foetuses' because they're unwanted and the consumption of the flesh of other animals because it tastes nice.)

In my view, respect for life doesn't automatically entail preserving and multiplying particular instances of it at the expense of others. If there's one thing that it means more than anything else, it means trying to preserve its immense diversity.

For now, I'll leave that as one post, except to answer the question you asked me in your previous post:

My guess is that life has no objective purpose for you so its value can only be determined by a person's subjective opinion. Is that true?

Yes, that's right. "Objective purpose" is, in my use, an oxymoron. Purposes are, by definition, held in the minds of conscious agents. Not necessarily human. Other animals can no doubt be said to have purposes too. The question of the extent to which it makes sense to talk of various species having purpose is a whole other issue.

In my view, obviously, this doesn't mean that purpose doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that there is no respect for the process of life from birth through to death and it doesn't mean that life is a "meaningless accident". (That word "accident" is often misused in these kinds of discussions, I think.). On the contrary, my view is that the proposition that some objective purpose exists in the universe and it just happens to take a special interest in the particular species, on the particular little planet, that dreamt it up, is what unjustly diminishes and trivializes the significance of life on earth and of human life. In my view, if humans wish to claim that we're special, we need to earn it, not award it to ourselves by inventing a system contrived such that we are at its centre.

But that's just my view.

[Belindi]

Nick wrote:

The second possibility is that the universe and functioning life within it is a conscious creation initiated by a conscious source for a necessary purpose of which Man is a part of. Plato alluded to it as the GOOD.

If the process of life spanning conception till death serves a purpose Man is still ignorant of, it may be possible that Man will still eventually become able to inwardly experience the purpose of life serving a higher purpose and strive to be a part of it. Respect for life will just be the norm.

But you cannot respect life unless you yourself purpose to decide which human life matters more than another.


Killing a foetus is bad but allowing some foetuses to live is even worse.

I agree with Nick's "second possibility" that the existence of the Good is a necessary purpose for life to exist. Living creatures including human foetuses happened so they must necessarily have happened. It is right to respect life, death, and all created processes.

One created process is human reason. Reasoning humans are forced by the Good to make intricate and complex decisions. Thinking for yourself is a necessary aspect of The Good. Nick failed to think for himself but instead parroted the simplistic falsehood that each and every foetus is more worthy than each and every other human being.