About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You stated: Government, even if democratic--meaning one that serves everyone in society--is to be limited in its scope. That scope is to secure our rights, just as the American Founders envisioned it.

Jack: Individual rights - how can this be when individuals are incapable of determining what is right and defines rights as being pleasure and not necessarily good? How can hedonism - the choice of the mass - regardless of ideology prove to serve the individual only in a perspective of indulgences and not reasoning? The problem remains -individual rights in the norm of human behavior is not what is right but only the desire to do for personal egoism thus determining in their course of events as being right - their extension of gratification without regard of results - Bentham is correct - the only change comes as a result of pain.

Response to pain is just that - the lack of reason! Therefore, if masses continue for the demand of the state to provide an avenue of pleasure as defined as freedom - I think not - governments of the people and for the people are just that - Plato is correct, the Cave is filled with the non-free, the indulgent and the desire for but the lack of rights or freedom. Do we desire rights and freedom - not in the absolute sense but only in a gratification sense - look outside your windows and the evidence is overwhelming.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Speak for yourself, Jack.



(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/24, 10:15am)


Post 2

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Tibor. One of the most enjoyable of your posts in recent memory. Often the simplest truths are the most powerful and important ones.

Regards,
--
Jeff


Post 3

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I did, do you have a reasnable response, thanks.

Post 4

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Troll alert.

Post 5

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jack, what in the hell are you talking about?  You're not making any sense.

If you want to spend your life worrying about what others will or won't do, fine by me, but that isn't how many here choose to spend their time or intellectual energies.


Post 6

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Exactly, Tibor.



Post 7

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy Bentham per Wikipedia:

"Jeremy Bentham: .... He is best known for his advocacy of utilitarianism, for the concept of animal rights,[1][2] and his opposition to the idea of natural rights, with his oft-quoted statement that the idea of such rights is "nonsense upon stilts."[3] He also influenced the development of welfarism.[4]"

Jack, is this the Bentham you refer too? Do you really think "Individuals are incapable of determining what is right.." or are you just referring to individuals other than yourself? Is there something special about your brain or would you like to share your method of "super-logic" that makes you so much more capable at determining than your fellow humans?

Post 8

Thursday, December 25, 2008 - 3:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ted.  After Jack's depressing, self-contradictory subjectivism, this objectively funny clip was a great welcome!

Post 9

Thursday, December 25, 2008 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for your response and I appreciate your comments. It is interesting the necessity of the argument. I enter this site for the stimulation of the argument. The argument is essential in the exchange of reason. The purpose of our entry into this site - the basis of acquisition of knowledge.
 
You ask me by what  method or means do I acquire or have this "super-logic" - I do not have such but I do agree concerning George Bernard Shaw's remark, "few people think more than two or three times a year." If this is true, then Plato has an argument concerning individual freedom and the inability of the masses in making appropriate decisions.
 
Critical thinking is essential in legitimate debate. Coppee in his book, Elements of Logic, states:
 

"In this consideration another word plays a prominent part. The word which has been pressed into service, to denote the peculiar progress of great minds in the domains of Truth, is Philosophy; but even the word philosophy, adopted by a wise ancient as a more modest title than sophos (greed for wisdom) as the sages of Greece were called, has been productive of great confusion. Philosophy has been made to stand for a thousand sciences and to preside in the kingdoms of mind, morals, physics, until to be a philosopher means to pursue one of many intellectual pursuits, and Philosophy unqualified means everything and nothing.

 

An yes this vague and inexact term, Philosophy, is the one which has been most frequently confounded with Logic, and a want of clear definition and of a just understanding in the dispute, has led to the production of abominable, distorted, and monstrous systems, both of Philosophy and Logic.

 

For this purpose, let us agree to regard Philosophy as the investigation of truth, as to it subject-matter, the process of finding materials and of classifying and aggregating observations and experiments, and Logic, as the simple reasoning process by which we pass from truth to truth already found, and by which we guard against false argument in such a passage. Therefore, Logic is in a great degree arbitrary and that we should not attain to an understanding of the subject, if we followed, even remotely, the etymology of the word, we repeat that Logic has to do neither with the words themselves – except as they are arranged into propositions and arguments – nor with their meanings, except as related to reasoning. In general terms then, we may state a definition of the term. Logic is the Science and the Art of Reasoning."

Therefore, please forgive me in the desire for the debate and an honest consideration of reason - the argument.


Post 10

Thursday, December 25, 2008 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jack, could you fill out your extended profile, so we know a little bit about you? Thanks.

The reason that I said "speak for yourself" above is that you say that most people don't think.

Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, December 25, 2008 - 4:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jack:
I agree that argument is essential in the acquisition of knowledge and is the purpose of this website. I've written elsewhere that disagreement is essential for debate but must be accompanied by goodwill. Find a single point of agreement and two seemingly contrary viewpoints can eventually be reconciled.

This particular thread concerns Tibor's article. Your criticisms so far seem over generalized and scattered. You seem to be saying that because few people are as capable of critical thinking as "philosophers" Tibor's arguments for a free society are flawed. People need to be told what to do I gather or they will simply follow whatever "gratifies" them or strokes their egos. That argument, besides annoying virtually everyone on this forum, is not specifically addressing a part of Tibor's article. For instance, Tibor argues that there is no "common goal" amongst individuals in a society.

"The political mission in a society is precisely to provide a framework within which all the disparate factions--those individuals, clubs, companies, etc. mentioned earlier--are free to work for what they want to accomplish."

I very much agree with this. The utilitarian reason: Open societies such as Tibor describes provide the creativity and innovation by which constant growth and improvements in all aspects of our lives can happen. The real reason: Liberty is not an option. A life without liberty is not a life.

I suggest you become more specific in your criticisms and try to find a point of agreement to work from. You will not find a better group of people to argue with. I personally prefer to audit these conversations, there are many more qualified and well read persons than I am on this website.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 1:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoever claims that Logic is arbitrary has no justification for any confidence in his or her own reasoning and the conclusions reached by it.  And in that quoted passage from Coppee there is a blatant non-sequitor--"does not follow"--in play. There is no justification for using the term "Therefore, Logic..." since what is said there doesn't follow from what went before and by the terms of this passage itself, if Logic is largely arbitrary, then "therefore" is also arbitrary and can command no respect from reasonable persons.

Post 13

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The very idea of society as a purposeful organization, like a corporation, is the big mistake of contemporary politics. It shows up well during the current transition from the Bush to the Obama administration, what with the parade of appointments of officers who are supposed to run various aspects of USA, Inc.
Parade, indeed: I heard on the radio that over 300,000 individuals applied to be "appointed" by Obama or his administration (he has over 300,000 resume`s). Like Rome, the era of the professional politician is here and -- in order to avoid the same fate as Rome -- it is important for us to decide what to do about the "professional politician" (before it is, again, too late).

Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.