Collaberative discussion. Obviously, I like to argue, and I have nothing against arguments. But they aren't the only approach to wisdom. This is especially true, GE, when some people (present company included) insist that the argument must use their terms, their definitions, their prejudices, and their world views. This is "modernism" at its most vulnerable, which post-modenism has effectively criticized. Obsession with "winning" the argument reduces the chances of actually learning from differing perspectives.
What philosophy offends you most?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
The history of ancient science does predate Plato. But the more formal moment is widely regarded as Aristotle his pupil doing the work of bringing it together. In his two part book GER Lloyd titled his books "Before.." and "After Aristotle".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 12:48 pmPattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 12:16 pm Philosophy? Not science? Your words seem to apply much more comfortably to science. Not that philosophy is a stranger to reason and logic, of course...I'm not sure how relevant this is, but didn't Plato think and write long before philosophers invented science, and spun it off as a separate entity?
But throughout most would have held that what we like to call "science" (Greek I know) would have been called "Natural Philosophy" and was until more recent times.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Are you sure? Of course non-human animals have no written laws or rights codified in language, but some of them seem to act as if they have property rights.
In one species of woodpecker (I forget the details, but I read about it in Helen MacConald\s "Vesper Flights", now back in the library), the male spends months drilling a nest into live trees. He can't attract a mate until he has a completed nest. Once nest is built, he defends it against any intruders.
Ants, bees, and other eusocial insects certainly act like they have a "right" to their nests or hives. They defend them to the death.
I suppose that in order to be a "right", ownership must be honored by at least some other creatures. And I think it is. Beavers don't take over the dams built by other beavers. Prairie dogs build elaborate homes with tunnel systems they share only with members of their clan.
Many animals are territorial and will defend their hunting grounds against members of their own species. Often they will mark their territory with urine or other forms of scent marking. Their territory is often honored by others (perhaps out of fear of reprisal, but the same can be said of human property rights).
All of these seem like a form of property rights (differently constituted from our own, but not utterly distinct). I agree that GE's notion that we "own" our own bodies (hence the right to life is a property right) is nonsense. For one thing, by GE's own standard it fails. WE are not born with no loss or injury to others. Our mothers (ever since Eve ate that apple) bore us in pain and suffering, and cared for us with scarce resources (milk, for one) that they could have used to benefit themselves. That's why we "owe" our parents. WE repay the debt by "honoring our mothers and fathers" (per the Commandment).
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
I thought you made a good pointPattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 8:29 amWith hindsight, I consider my response rather too flippant. The point you make is a serious one, with which I completely agree.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 8:25 am Oh, I think we all do that! The stereotype for net-nerds like us is encapsulated by the phrase, "No, I can't do that right now. There's someone on the internet who is WRONG!"
There's no rule that says I have to step up every time someone metaphorically kicks a cat. More than anything, I become frustrated at "bread & circuses" issues being taken seriously on philosophy forums, when the media that raised the issue was already ignoring decades of science on the subject.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
A point I made in a previous post in the thread:Ecurb wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 6:57 pm
Are you sure? Of course non-human animals have no written laws or rights codified in language, but some of them seem to act as if they have property rights.
In one species of woodpecker (I forget the details, but I read about it in Helen MacConald\s "Vesper Flights", now back in the library), the male spends months drilling a nest into live trees. He can't attract a mate until he has a completed nest. Once nest is built, he defends it against any intruders.
Ants, bees, and other eusocial insects certainly act like they have a "right" to their nests or hives. They defend them to the death.
viewtopic.php?p=419624
Per the classical understanding of the meaning of a "right," of course, that animals have some rights is self-evident. The moral question is then, not, "What rights (if any) do animals have?", but, "What duties do we have to respect their rights"?
That is the same moral question that arises with respect to rights of humans.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
OK.GE Morton wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 1:34 pmThe issue was whether the history of philosophy has been a "searching and exploring ideas with people in a fairly collaborative way" or contention of competing views. Plato's dialogues are nothing but the latter.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 12:48 pm
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but didn't Plato think and write long before philosophers invented science, and spun it off as a separate entity?
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
The poster was using "animals" in contradistinction to humans.
Last time I looked there was no lex avis, codified anywhere. So property, being a legal term is not applicable.
In one species of woodpecker (I forget the details, but I read about it in Helen MacConald\s "Vesper Flights", now back in the library), the male spends months drilling a nest into live trees. He can't attract a mate until he has a completed nest. Once nest is built, he defends it against any intruders.
I would argue whether ANY property rights were justifiable.
The fact that the bird has to defend space against intruders means that it has no rights to it.
See above
Ants, bees, and other eusocial insects certainly act like they have a "right" to their nests or hives. They defend them to the death.
See aboveI suppose that in order to be a "right", ownership must be honored by at least some other creatures. And I think it is. Beavers don't take over the dams built by other beavers. Prairie dogs build elaborate homes with tunnel systems they share only with members of their clan.
Many animals are territorial and will defend their hunting grounds against members of their own species. Often they will mark their territory with urine or other forms of scent marking. Their territory is often honored by others (perhaps out of fear of reprisal, but the same can be said of human property rights).
All of these seem like a form of property rights (differently constituted from our own, but not utterly distinct). I agree that GE's notion that we "own" our own bodies (hence the right to life is a property right) is nonsense. For one thing, by GE's own standard it fails. WE are not born with no loss or injury to others. Our mothers (ever since Eve ate that apple) bore us in pain and suffering, and cared for us with scarce resources (milk, for one) that they could have used to benefit themselves. That's why we "owe" our parents. WE repay the debt by "honoring our mothers and fathers" (per the Commandment).
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Non-human animals clearly do not "codify" property law in writing. Neither did humans, for most of their existance. Are you saying humans had no "property" or "property rights" until Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments? Early humans hadn't "codified" property law any more than other animals.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 12th, 2022, 5:56 am
Last time I looked there was no lex avis, codified anywhere. So property, being a legal term is not applicable.
I would argue whether ANY property rights were justifiable.
The fact that the bird has to defend space against intruders means that it has no rights to it.
Also, all property rights are "defended" -- as all those castles dotting the landscape of Europe attest. In modern societies the property rights are defended by the police and armies of the State.
Whether property rights are "justifiable" is a different argument. It is clear that they exist in most modern cultures, and that they existed when Moses brought the those tablets down from Mt. Sinai ("Thou shall not steal" makes it clear that the ancient Jews had property rights, as does that "coveting" injunction.) We can assume property (and hence the rights and duties incumbent on it) existed in human cultures prior to being "codified".
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
SO what is your point here?Ecurb wrote: ↑August 12th, 2022, 9:34 amNon-human animals clearly do not "codify" property law in writing. Neither did humans, for most of their existance. Are you saying humans had no "property" or "property rights" until Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments? Early humans hadn't "codified" property law any more than other animals.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 12th, 2022, 5:56 am
Last time I looked there was no lex avis, codified anywhere. So property, being a legal term is not applicable.
I would argue whether ANY property rights were justifiable.
The fact that the bird has to defend space against intruders means that it has no rights to it.
Also, all property rights are "defended" -- as all those castles dotting the landscape of Europe attest. In modern societies the property rights are defended by the police and armies of the State.
Whether property rights are "justifiable" is a different argument. It is clear that they exist in most modern cultures, and that they existed when Moses brought the those tablets down from Mt. Sinai ("Thou shall not steal" makes it clear that the ancient Jews had property rights, as does that "coveting" injunction.) We can assume property (and hence the rights and duties incumbent on it) existed in human cultures prior to being "codified".
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Well, first, the right to life and the right to one's body are two different rights. There is no "hence" implication.
And, yes, your right to your body is a property right, "property rights" being rights to anything which can be conveyed to another. People sell plasma, blood, and even organs (which is illegal in many places, but that is irrelevant). They also donate their bodies or body parts (organ donors) to organ banks or medical schools, etc. Your body and its parts are your property.
Sorry, but a loss or suffering voluntarily incurred is not a moral offense. Neither are gifts, which also involve a loss to the giver. Those are the price mothers pay, willingly and even eagerly, to satisfy their desire to bear and raise a child. Neither does the child inflict those losses and suffering; the mother inflicts them upon herself, when she decides to become pregnant and re-affirms that decision every day she remains pregnant.WE are not born with no loss or injury to others. Our mothers (ever since Eve ate that apple) bore us in pain and suffering, and cared for us with scarce resources (milk, for one) that they could have used to benefit themselves.
You're wrong about that too. No one incurs a debt for some benefit he did not solicit, and did not arise through some act of his own. Gifts don't create debts.That's why we "owe" our parents. WE repay the debt by "honoring our mothers and fathers" (per the Commandment).
You're zero for three on this one.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
It's illegal to sell one's organs. Therefore, they are not treated like property under the law.GE Morton wrote: ↑August 12th, 2022, 12:04 pm
Well, first, the right to life and the right to one's body are two different rights. There is no "hence" implication.
And, yes, your right to your body is a property right, "property rights" being rights to anything which can be conveyed to another. People sell plasma, blood, and even organs (which is illegal in many places, but that is irrelevant). They also donate their bodies or body parts (organ donors) to organ banks or medical schools, etc. Your body and its parts are your property.
Bearing children is sometimes "voluntarily incurred", and sometimes it is accidentally incurred, In either case, parents support their children and most reasonable people think that the children owe them respect and honor as a result. It's one of the Ten Commandments along with "thou shalt not kill" and other standard, traditional tenets of morality.Sorry, but a loss or suffering voluntarily incurred is not a moral offense. Neither are gifts, which also involve a loss to the giver. Those are the price mothers pay, willingly and even eagerly, to satisfy their desire to bear and raise a child. Neither does the child inflict those losses and suffering; the mother inflicts them upon herself, when she decides to become pregnant and re-affirms that decision every day she remains pregnant.
So say you. Every reasonable person disagrees. If you are drowning and, despite not soliciting rescue, someone dives into the water and saves your life, you owe him a debt of gratitude. At least most people think so. So do I. You owe a similar debt to your parents who supported you, reared you, gave you an allowance, and read the Ten Commandments to you.You're wrong about that too. No one incurs a debt for some benefit he did not solicit, and did not arise through some act of his own. Gifts don't create debts.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
https://reason.com/video/2022/08/16/mic ... n-got-woke
Shermer wrote a Skeptics column for SA for 20 years, before being laid off in 2019 when the magazine became "woke." The publisher informed him that publication was "moving in a different direction" and had no further place for old-school scholars like him.
I subscribed to SA for 40 years, and dropped my subscription in 2013, a year after it's previous remake, its 2012 turn to populism. So I missed the 2019 turn. The magazine was previously targeted to scientifically literate readers who were interested in following developments outside their own fields. Each issue averaged 120-150 pages and 4-6 feature articles on various scientific projects or results written by the scientists actually doing the work. David Chalmers introduced the "hard problem" to the world at large in a 1995 essay in Scientific American (where I first heard of it). After the populist turn the magazine's size shrunk to half that, with perhaps one article written by a working professional and 2-3 "overview" pieces on current work written by staff hacks, with more color photos and much less scientific detail.
The 2012 turn reduced the once substantive and influential magazine to mass-market superficiality; the latest turn to trendy triviality.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
I haven't watched the video yet (it's more than an hour long). However, from your description, I think Shermer is correct that "social contagion" is fueling "trans" identity demands in some young people. We should recognize, though, that social contagion (or social pressure) for years ebncouraged identifying as CIS and hetero. If the one, why not the other? I don't doubt that some trans teens like the attention and support they get from their peers (here in liberal Eugene I saw it happening in my son's high school)-- just as some teens who identify as CIS and hetero like the attention and support they get from their peers. We know that when homosexuality was illegal, lots of gay people got married and identified as hetero. Now some confused teens (probably uncertain about their gender identity) may identify as trans. So what? What's so horrible about that?GE Morton wrote: ↑August 17th, 2022, 2:05 pm Here is an interesting interview by Reason magazine's Nick Gillespie of Michael Shermer, an historian of science and a long time columnist with Scientific American, covering the topics of this thread --- post-modernism, "Wokeism," trans-gender issues, even, "What is a Woman?" Shermer suggests "social contagion" as the explanation for why many young people now "self-identify" as "trans," "bi-," "non-binary," or some other sex-related minority now receiving attention. The cause, Shermer suggests, is peer-pressure --- being "straight" is boring, and not "cool."
https://reason.com/video/2022/08/16/mic ... n-got-woke
Shermer wrote a Skeptics column for SA for 20 years, before being laid off in 2019 when the magazine became "woke." The publisher informed him that publication was "moving in a different direction" and had no further place for old-school scholars like him.
I subscribed to SA for 40 years, and dropped my subscription in 2013, a year after it's previous remake, its 2012 turn to populism. So I missed the 2019 turn. The magazine was previously targeted to scientifically literate readers who were interested in following developments outside their own fields. Each issue averaged 120-150 pages and 4-6 feature articles on various scientific projects or results written by the scientists actually doing the work. David Chalmers introduced the "hard problem" to the world at large in a 1995 essay in Scientific American (where I first heard of it). After the populist turn the magazine's size shrunk to half that, with perhaps one article written by a working professional and 2-3 "overview" pieces on current work written by staff hacks, with more color photos and much less scientific detail.
The 2012 turn reduced the once substantive and influential magazine to mass-market superficiality; the latest turn to trendy triviality.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: August 17th, 2022, 4:29 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023