What philosophy offends you most?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: August 11th, 2022, 11:44 am
Ecurb wrote: August 11th, 2022, 9:54 am The notion (popular here and in philosophy in general) that "argument" is the best or only path to some sort of truth is, I think, incorrect.
What alternative path do you have in mind?
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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 12:48 pm
GE Morton wrote: August 11th, 2022, 11:49 am [Philosophy] has always been a clash of competing, contentious, incompatible views, but with a common commitment to reason --- logic and evidence --- for resolving them.
Pattern-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...
GE Morton wrote: August 11th, 2022, 12:44 pm You've read Plato's dialogues?
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?
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".

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.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Ecurb »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 10th, 2022, 5:49 am Here's an example of an offensive philosophy:
One that thinks animals have property rights.
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).
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sy Borg »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 8:29 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 9th, 2022, 5:39 pm While I find peace vastly preferable, I sometimes choose to challenge those who unfairly misrepresent or even openly denigrate the vulnerable.
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!" 😅
With hindsight, I consider my response 👆 rather too flippant. The point you make is a serious one, with which I completely agree.
I thought you made a good point :lol:

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.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

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.
A point I made in a previous post in the thread:

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.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8269
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

OK. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8269
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sorry, I forgot to include the post I was answering.

GE Morton wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:34 pm
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?
The 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.
OK. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Ecurb wrote: August 11th, 2022, 6:57 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 10th, 2022, 5:49 am Here's an example of an offensive philosophy:
One that thinks animals have property rights.
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.
The poster was using "animals" in contradistinction to humans.

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.
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.

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 above
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).
See above
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).
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Ecurb »

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.
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.

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".
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Ecurb wrote: August 12th, 2022, 9:34 am
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.
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.

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".
SO what is your point here?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: August 11th, 2022, 6:57 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's why we "owe" our parents. WE repay the debt by "honoring our mothers and fathers" (per the Commandment).
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.

You're zero for three on this one.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Ecurb »

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.
It's illegal to sell one's organs. Therefore, they are not treated like property under the law.
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.
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.

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.
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.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by GE Morton »

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.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by Ecurb »

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.
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?
BrianKingofTrolls
Posts: 9
Joined: August 17th, 2022, 4:29 pm

Re: What philosophy offends you most?

Post by BrianKingofTrolls »

Any philosophy that advocates for limiting speech. Freedom of speech is the heart of a virtuous society; therefore, limiting speech is the dream of the Devil himself.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

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