Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Bosco1 on January 23, 2023, 09:46:14 PM
-
Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.
For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:
J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”
“Law” whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.
-
Is there anything in particular you wished to discuss about that? Or are you just cross-posting that chunk of text on different forms (https://www.thelaw.com/threads/law-is-not-determinative-of-conduct.82055/#post-340632) for fun?
-
J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”
J. P. Sarte?
Sounds vaguely familiar. Where is that citation codified in law and under what authority does it override a statute that prescribes capital punishment as the penalty for murder?
-
Intelligibility is the authority. Law is ontologically unintelligible due to being mistakenly deemed originative of human action and inaction. Sartre's account of the origin of human action is correct ontologically.
-
Got a point to make?
-
GPT-3 experiment?
-
AI bot. Nuke it from orbit.
-
GPT-3 experiment?
That's what I was thinking. It reads like one of the crappy AI scripts.
-
AI bot. Nuke it from orbit.
I had that or college kid on an acid trip having an existential crisis.
-
Looks like some comedian's chatbot posting to me.
Bosco? That was an old brand of chocolate syrup used to "fortify" milk.
That tickles an old memory - I think I had a Bosco Bear bank when I was 3 or 4 years old, but my younger self thought it looked more like a monkey than a bear.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg1.etsystatic.com%2F007%2F0%2F7044481%2Fil_fullxfull.362661069_sfgq.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=71ad39e53ed7b4e0086ef13bf9c17565fd0cfc45bf5c3afb3584f7da6e10d95d&ipo=images)
-
AI bot or human, Bosco1's forte definitely is not clear, concise communication. I've never run into a chatbot quite that pretentious, but who knows?
Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.
This sentence is contradictory. You state that law "without question" determines action, but also that Sartre demonstrated that was not true.
That said, if one is an adherent to Sartre's philosophy then one need not be bothered by rampant contradiction.
For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:
There are layers, degrees, and conflicts when it comes to human social obligations. Even specific to the realm of law there are regularly conflicting responsibilities that are not consistently weighed from decision to decision. A magistrate might be required based on a particular situation and law to do something. They might also choose to defy those requirements based on other obligations they feel (religious, moral, familial, whatever). The fact that they are capable of defying those requirements does not negate them, or the consequences of doing so.
“Law” whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.
If a magistrate chooses to do something unpleasant in accordance with the law and describes his action as being "bound and determined by law" he might well be accurately depicting a particular compulsion that is overriding the other burdens they are weighing. Or he might be hiding behind it to justify not having to make an independent decision. However, while stating that his actions were influenced primarily by one particular duty might not be fully complete, it is no more dishonest than other incomplete statements.
A human can choose to starve themselves to death, but that doesn't make the statement "I have to eat" dishonest. Like all human communication, there is an enormous amount of subtext and context that helps apply meaning. "I have to eat" might have the subtext of "I wish to continue to live, to avoid the discomfort of hunger, and to have energy to accomplish other goals," among other things.
-
Intelligibility is the authority. Law is ontologically unintelligible due to being mistakenly deemed originative of human action and inaction. Sartre's account of the origin of human action is correct ontologically.
If the law of [state] says the penalty for murder is execution, that's a pretty intelligible statement. It is also the requirement of the law, so a judge would be entirely correct in stating that the law requires him to impose that punishment.
What J. P. Sarte thinks is moral or immoral on the issue is irrelevant.
-
This sentence is contradictory. You state that law "without question" determines action, but also that Sartre demonstrated that was not true.
No, I am saying those who hold to law do so absolutely without questioning the validity of law.
What is all this nonsense about a bot writing my post!? I wrote it!
-
No, I am saying those who hold to law do so absolutely without questioning the validity of law.
If you intended "without question" to refer to how people follow law, I did not read it that way. As written, "without question" is an adverbial phrase which modifies the verb "are deemed". According to modern English, the sentence was structured to mean that you were stating as undisputed truth that human action is generated by law. I think the causality typically runs in the opposite direction, but that's neither here nor there.
As far as your new point, not everyone who obeys a given law or tries to follow a given system of laws does so without questioning the law. Nor does anyone I'm aware of do so absolutely. On the flip side, very few people who violate the law do so from a considered perspective of considered existentialism.
What is all this nonsense about a bot writing my post!? I wrote it!
With respect, your very first post was a cut-and-paste repost from another forum without context or introduction. For a variety of reasons it frankly gave the impression of being generated by something or someone with an immature grasp of philosophy piecing together elements into something not dissimilar from the output of some generative adversarial networks.
It was an interesting way to say: "Hi, nice to meet you."
-
No, I am saying those who hold to law do so absolutely without questioning the validity of law.
What is all this nonsense about a bot writing my post!? I wrote it!
Not universal.
Some laws I follow because it's the right thing to do and would probably follow that course even if it weren't law.
Some laws I follow because I am unwilling at this point in my life to deal with the consequences of getting caught breaking said law.
Some laws I break because I know the odds of negative consequences are low or the consequences are insignificant enough to be worth the risk.
-
If the law of [state] says the penalty for murder is execution, that's a pretty intelligible statement.
What J. P. Sarte thinks is moral or immoral on the issue is irrelevant.
I am speaking of ontological intelligibility. The claim that the magistrate is acting by law is bogus. Law is a given state of affairs, while, ontologically, all acts upsurge on the basis of what is not yet done; what is absent/desired.
There is no moral element involved.
-
If you intended "without question" to refer to how people follow law, I did not read it that way. As written, "without question" is an adverbial phrase which modifies the verb "are deemed". According to modern English, the sentence was structured to mean that you were stating as undisputed truth that human action is generated by law. I think the causality typically runs in the opposite direction, but that's neither here nor there.
Yes, I am saying that I think the entire world accepts law without question, without dispute; but, Sartre shows that human acts do not arise on the basis if given states of affairs, and, law is a given state of affairs.
I very very much appreciate you responding to my entire post, bit by bit.
I had just posted it on another site, but they were horrid and banned me quick like a mouse; so I looked for another forum and found this one; people here are decent...
-
I looked for another forum and found this one; people here are decent...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
We just lure you in and then pounce when you least expect it, kind of like the Spanish Inquisition.
-
We just lure you in and then pounce when you least expect it, kind of like the Spanish Inquisition.
That was unexpected
-
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
-
I am speaking of ontological intelligibility. The claim that the magistrate is acting by law is bogus. Law is a given state of affairs, while, ontologically, all acts upsurge on the basis of what is not yet done; what is absent/desired.
There is no moral element involved.
BS.
I don't know where you live, but I live in the real world. In the real world, if you break the law you can be arrested, tried, fined, and incarcerated. You can call laws "bogus" if you disagree with them, but what's your answer? In the real world, the answer is: you go to the legislature and petition to have a bad law removed. Been there, done that -- successfully.
-
Oh, s/he's just spoofing Terry's posts.
-
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d7/d0/66/d7d0664ba2c3779f20ad86ea3839d3b3.jpg)
-
BS.
I don't know where you live, but I live in the real world. In the real world, if you break the law you can be arrested, tried, fined, and incarcerated. You can call laws "bogus" if you disagree with them, but what's your answer? In the real world, the answer is: you go to the legislature and petition to have a bad law removed. Been there, done that -- successfully.
[/quote
Yes, of course, all law ultimately has is violence and infliction of death, and there is a very dire sense wherein that is real. However, law is the most irreal/artificial state of affairs extant. Pure man made systematical misleadingness.
What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...
-
Yes, I am saying that I think the entire world accepts law without question, without dispute; but, Sartre shows that human acts do not arise on the basis if given states of affairs, and, law is a given state of affairs.
Bosco1, do you have practical experience with humans? I ask because on my way into work today I saw more people breaking laws than perfectly following them. I saw speeding, failure to signal, expired registrations, homeless squatters, and having walked the streets I was driving I know them to be littered (a crime in and of itself) with needles used for illegal drugs. Having spent time with police both personally and professionally I can tell you that what I see is hardly even the tip of the iceberg.
Roadkinglarry provides a good illustration of the mindset that many people have. Law is given deference (or not) for a variety of reasons.
I still say that you and Sartre have the causality reversed when it comes to law.
-
Oh, and Bosco1, please learn the quote function better. Your response is supposed after the [/quote]. It makes it much easier to read your responses.
-
All you described that you saw today simply reinforces my contention that given law is not determinative of conduct. All the mass murder shows the same, i.e., law is not, cannot be, determinative
Causation is the very last notion I personally entertain in regard to the origin of a human act.
My ontological freedom is not, cannot, be causally moved to act, or not, by an existing external phenomenon.
Sartre never speaks of law. I am viewing the law through the lens of his view of how a human act arises, and, that view permits me to show that jurisprudence does not actually understand how human action and inaction originate.
I do not understand what you mean when you say I have causality reversed...
-
Oh, and Bosco1, please learn the quote function better. Your response is supposed after the . It makes it much easier to read your responses.
Yes, I am having extreme difficulty responding.
-
I'm happy to be a common dufus so I don't have to bother with breaking my brain trying to make sense of philosophical gibberish. =)
-
I'm happy to be a common dufus so I don't have to bother with breaking my brain trying to make sense of philosophical gibberish. =)
The language I use comes out of what is known world wide as the most difficult book in the world, i.e., "Being and Nothingness", by J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), Part Four: Freedom, translated from French into English in 1943. Do not feel bad. It takes decades of hard work to understand the concepts set forth in the book. I was absolutely lost when I first encountered the book in a college Philosophy course many decades ago, so I know how you feel; but one does not quit just because something is radically difficult.
-
but one does not quit just because something is radically difficult.
This one does, especially when it serves no practical purpose.
-
It's possible that Sartre was making fun of abstruse writings. That remark was made during one of those after-party discussions at 4 AM, so let it pass. In like manner, at the same party, it was also posited that Jackson Pollock was probably making fun of "abstract art." Sample:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.handelsblatt.com%2Fimages%2Fhugo-bildid-28592873lot-10property-from-a-distinguished-american-collectionjackson-pollock1912-1956number-4-1951signed-on-the-reverse%2F7387278%2F3-format2020.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1c2af2886f8288aa8147029f3c5611105ee14dde860bd2455e216a07012df6d4&ipo=images)
I believe that's Pollock's "Number 4." I was always impressed by the shape of the model's beautiful nose.
You mean you don't see it? You hopeless clod, you.
I'm happy to be a common dufus so I don't have to bother with breaking my brain trying to make sense of philosophical gibberish. =)
Yes, prolix writing does not equal communication.
This all reminds me of someone having fun baiting the "we have ten million dollars which we want to send to you but we need $500 up front to cover the costs" type of spammer. Gotta keep the spammer on the hook as long as possible for the fun of it.
I'm surprised the agony was allowed to continue.
(https://www.agcoauto.com/content/images/maintenance/how_long_car_last_mauldin_jeep.jpg)
Terry, 230RN
-
This one does, especially when it serves no practical purpose.
The practical purpose that studying this stuff serves, is that one can become what is known as being reflectively free. To be reflectively free is to plainly understand how one's acts actually come to be; which is via what is known as the "double nihilation", i.e., when one is intending to do something one is surpassing the present state of affairs toward a not yet done something which one intends to do. That surpassing is a nihilation (i.e., to make nothing) of the present/given state toward the not yet, future, intended state of affairs; which intended future state of affairs is nihilated, i.e., is a nothing made by one's intentional consciousness.
-
The practical purpose that studying this stuff serves, is that one can become what is known as being reflectively free. To be reflectively free is to plainly understand how one's acts actually come to be; which is via what is known as the "double nihilation", i.e., when one is intending to do something one is surpassing the present state of affairs toward a not yet done something which one intends to do. That surpassing is a nihilation (i.e., to make nothing) of the present/given state toward the not yet, future, intended state of affairs; which intended future state of affairs is nihilated, i.e., is a nothing made by one's intentional consciousness.
As I said several posts above, "BS."
And, as JN01 said, "philosophical gibberish."
Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
-
My call is that this bot has failed the Turing test.
-
As I said several posts above, "BS."
And, as JN01 said, "philosophical gibberish."
Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
Fine. Stay stuck on - - - - - -.
-
The practical purpose of studying philosophy?
Keeping the professors who sell the studying of philosophy employed and able to afford the nice lodgings within an easy walk of the campus.
Keeping the professors who sell the studying of philosophy able to influence young students to share their beds.
-
Aren't there Term Paper Generators that can do that?
-
Term paper generators don't do blow jobs or make the payments for your Volvo.
-
Aren't there Term Paper Generators that can do that?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chatgpt-chatbot-artificial-intelligence-job-replacement/
-
Bosco1, do you have practical experience with humans? I ask because on my way into work today I saw more people breaking laws than perfectly following them. I saw speeding, failure to signal, expired registrations, homeless squatters, and having walked the streets I was driving I know them to be littered (a crime in and of itself) with needles used for illegal drugs. Having spent time with police both personally and professionally I can tell you that what I see is hardly even the tip of the iceberg.
Roadkinglarry provides a good illustration of the mindset that many people have. Law is given deference (or not) for a variety of reasons.
I still say that you and Sartre have the causality reversed when it comes to law.
All you described that you saw today simply reinforces my contention that given law is not determinative of conduct. All the mass murder shows the same, i.e., law is not, cannot be, determinative
Causation is the very last notion I personally entertain in regard to the origin of a human act.
My ontological freedom is not, cannot, be causally moved to act, or not, by an existing external phenomenon.
Sartre never speaks of law. I am viewing the law through the lens of his view of how a human act arises, and, that view permits me to show that jurisprudence does not actually understand how human action and inaction originate.
I do not understand what you mean when you say I have causality reversed...
-
What is you name?
What is your quest?
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
-
What is you name?
What is your quest?
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
My name is Duane.
My quest is to glimpse a path to human civilization without suffocative law.
Unladen swallows are very slow.
-
My name is Duane.
My quest is to glimpse a path to human civilization without suffocative law.
Unladen swallows are very slow.
Next, someone will ask you your favorite color.
You need to catch up on classic movies. =) Not a law, just a recommendation.
-
BS.
I don't know where you live, but I live in the real world. In the real world, if you break the law you can be arrested, tried, fined, and incarcerated. You can call laws "bogus" if you disagree with them, but what's your answer? In the real world, the answer is: you go to the legislature and petition to have a bad law removed. Been there, done that -- successfully.
Yes, of course, all law ultimately has is violence and infliction of death, and there is a very dire sense wherein that is real. However, law is the most irreal/artificial state of affairs extant. Pure man made systematical misleadingness.
What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...
So what happens in a situation where there is no law? That would only exist without humans (or life) so I don't see the point.
-
Failed the Monty Python test
Okay how about
What is best in life?
-
So what happens in a situation where there is no law? That would only exist without humans (or life) so I don't see the point.
We are at this moment essentially in a situation without law, for law is not in fact determinative of human conduct, and, we are currently deluded in thinking that persons are and can be determined in their actions and inactions by law. I think a start to actually having civilization is first to render everyone reflectively free, which would be to increase the dignity/nobility of each person, and, thereby to calm human conduct.
-
We are at this moment essentially in a situation without law, for law is not in fact determinative of human conduct, and, we are currently deluded in thinking that persons are and can be determined in their actions and inactions by law. I think a start to actually having civilization is first to render everyone reflectively free, which would be to increase the dignity/nobility of each person, and, thereby to calm human conduct.
That makes some sense what you are saying even if I don't agree with it, but that could be said in much more plainly worded language. =)
IMO, if you have as few as two people living in close proximity, there will be law of some type. It may not be written down, but it will be there.
-
That makes some sense, but that could be said in much more plainly worded language. =)
Go ahead, write it the way you deem fit. I write the way I write and, that was rapidly written on the spur of the moment, in response to your question...
But thanks for saying it made some sense.
-
I edited my statement after you replied. I edit my post sometimes.
-
IMO, if you have as few as two people living in close proximity, there will be law of some type. It may not be written down, but it will be there.
Laws are essentially codified social or cultural conventions. Shared sets of values among a group which are codified and enforced such that certain conduct can be expected when we interact with each other. So you can enter contracts and know there is a way for them to be enforced. Go to the grocery store and know you're extremely unlikely to be stabbed unless you live in failed city.
People tend to be wary if you don't follow normal social conventions. Consider if you were to walk up to a group of strangers and immediately start waxing philosophical without so much as introducing yourself first. They will be very cautious of you and your intentions.
-
Well, St. Louis is right now effectively without law - anarchy, thanks to the Really Smart People telling our police that they hate them, and then further demonstrating it.
Stay strapped, or get clapped.
Bosco, are you the man who killed my father?
-
Yes, I am saying that I think the entire world accepts law without question, without dispute
This is demonstrably false, as you admit below. If people regularly violate the law they do not accept it "without question, without dispute." I admit, tilting at your own strawmen with other strawmen is an interesting technique.
All you described that you saw today simply reinforces my contention that given law is not determinative of conduct. All the mass murder shows the same, i.e., law is not, cannot be, determinative
You excel at stating simple things badly. Yes, people violate the law, but that clearly shows the absurdity of your contention about universal acceptance of the law.
My ontological freedom is not, cannot, be causally moved to act, or not, by an existing external phenomenon.
Not 100%, but like most people your action can be strongly manipulated by the denial or provision of your basic needs, direction of your emotions, direct force, threats against loved ones, etc.
I am viewing the law through the lens of his view of how a human act arises, and, that view permits me to show that jurisprudence does not actually understand how human action and inaction originate.
I do not understand what you mean when you say I have causality reversed...
The structure we know as law springs from successful human action and social evolution. Societies and groups which worked together to punish theft, murder, rape, etc. tended to do better than societies which didn't.
Yes, of course, all law ultimately has is violence and infliction of death, and there is a very dire sense wherein that is real. However, law is the most irreal/artificial state of affairs extant. Pure man made systematical misleadingness.
What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...
Granted: law is susceptible to abuse. However, do you believe (as you seem to be stating) that law is an unalloyed evil?
-
It is "against the law" to run red lights, to drive down major streets waving a carbine out your sunroof, and it is against the law to walk into a hardware store, pick something up and walk out without paying.
Yet I see stuff like that regularly...
Can you prove you did not kill my father?
-
Can you prove you did not kill my father?
Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
This is easy!
Next!
-
Can you prove you did not kill my father?
Honestly I would like to see a DNA test to prove he isn’t your father. =D
-
This is demonstrably false, as you admit below. If people regularly violate the law they do not accept it "without question, without dispute." I admit, tilting at your own strawmen with other strawmen is an interesting technique.
You excel at stating simple things badly. Yes, people violate the law, but that clearly shows the absurdity of your contention about universal acceptance of the law.
Not 100%, but like most people your action can be strongly manipulated by the denial or provision of your basic needs, direction of your emotions, direct force, threats against loved ones, etc.
The structure we know as law springs from successful human action and social evolution. Societies and groups which worked together to punish theft, murder, rape, etc. tended to do better than societies which didn't.
Granted: law is susceptible to abuse. However, do you believe (as you seem to be stating) that law is an unalloyed evil?
When I say "law'' I am referring to that series of persons who make, mediate, and enforce law; I am not referring to grassroots persons..
Law is currently an institution which totally fails to comprehend the actual structure of how a human act originates, and, in so far as law mistakenly demands persons act by law, it is an ignorant and treacherous ogre.
-
When I say "law'' I am referring to that series of persons who make, mediate, and enforce law; I am not referring to grassroots persons..
Law is currently an institution which totally fails to comprehend the actual structure of how a human act originates, and, in so far as law mistakenly demands persons act by law, it is an ignorant and treacherous ogre.
What is your proposed alternative?
-
When I say "law'' I am referring to that series of persons who make, mediate, and enforce law; I am not referring to grassroots persons..
Law is currently an institution which totally fails to comprehend the actual structure of how a human act originates, and, in so far as law mistakenly demands persons act by law, it is an ignorant and treacherous ogre.
Except that that's not what the word "law" means. You might as well argue "Rutabaga" is not determinative of conduct, and when challenged make up a definition other than starchy tuber.
-
Except that that's not what the word "law" means. You might as well argue "Rutabaga" is not determinative of conduct, and when challenged make up a definition other than starchy tuber.
So, then, tell us what it means.
Law is a language mediated and enforced by the so-called authorities...
-
What is your proposed alternative?
First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm. The final totalization of what civilization can be can only be the resultant of this type of dialogic interaction...
-
I'm going to the grocery now. Should I take the Glock or the Smith & Wesson?
-
If I teach a mentally capable 8 year old for 20 consecutive minutes to replace an alphabet letter with a new letter and pronunciation then the mentally capable 8 year old writes and pronounces the new letter and pronunciation that's replacing an alphabet letter in 20 consecutive minutes. I teach a mentally capable 8 year old for 20 consecutive minutes to replace an alphabet letter with a new letter and pronunciation. Thus, the mentally capable 8 year old writes and pronounces the new letter and pronunciation that replaces an alphabet letter in 20 consecutive minutes.
-
I'm going to the grocery now. Should I take the Glock or the Smith & Wesson?
Sunny? SW
Looks like precip? Glock
-
First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm. The final totalization of what civilization can be can only be the resultant of this type of dialogic interaction...
So after your instruction that human acts originate in “being reflectively free” we can expect a utopia? No chance of someone being unable or unwilling to control their actions? No risk that someone might take advantage of others weaker than themselves? No possibility that someone might fail to live up to their commitments?
-
So after your instruction that human acts originate in “being reflectively free” we can expect a utopia? No chance of someone being unable or unwilling to control their actions? No risk that someone might take advantage of others weaker than themselves? No possibility that someone might fail to live up to their commitments?
How dare you say human nature is the ultimate Achille's Heel of utopic envisioning? I bet you also think water is wet.
Peasant.
Brad
-
So after your instruction that human acts originate in “being reflectively free” we can expect a utopia? No chance of someone being unable or unwilling to control their actions? No risk that someone might take advantage of others weaker than themselves? No possibility that someone might fail to live up to their commitments?
It does appear to be an argument for anarchy, and suggests that if everyone just sat down and considered their actions and motivations, well, that'd be "the final totalization of what civilization can be".
To me - having met actual humans - this seems like a very naive position. Lawless regions are cesspools of suffering, not a utopia. Like Syria, Somaliland, East Saint Louis, etc.
-
So, then, tell us what it means.
Law is a language mediated and enforced by the so-called authorities...
Off the top of my head a workable common definition would probably be something like "A set of mores and customs generally agreed upon by a community or society and enforced by the civil authority of that group".
You substituted the actual civil authorities charged with enforcing the law with the law, which is unworkable because the people in that system, being people, can and do break the law.
Nor is it a language (although it could be argued one needs to learn a new language to understand modern law).
First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm.
Notwithstanding the rest of your pseudo-philosophical navel gazing this statement is objectively false. Human's are not calm when left to their own devices. "Human acts" when unencumbered by societal or social rules are almost universally predatory and not calm. Which makes sense if you actually thought about what drives human behavior. we are basically small pack predators, so stripping away the "law" leaves that animal: A territorial, tribal predator that is neither calm, nor particularly dignified or noble.
If you or M. Sartre thinks otherwise I would ask for an example of any group in the history of humanity where removing societal strictures on behavior resulted in calm dignified behavior from the group.
-
So after your instruction that human acts originate in “being reflectively free” we can expect a utopia? No chance of someone being unable or unwilling to control their actions? No risk that someone might take advantage of others weaker than themselves? No possibility that someone might fail to live up to their commitments?
I said we should start by rendering all persons as reflectively free. Then all of the negative behaviors could well intensify, and, so would reactions thereto...perhaps erasing the ignoble ones via grassroots violence...However, I think raising all persons up to reflective freedom will ennoble and calm everyone.
-
I bet you also think water is wet.
No, for by wet I, without question, mean a state of existence separate from the existential, ontological, reflective totalization. A state of mind not achievable by water, by which I mean your face.
-
No, for by wet I, without question, mean a state of existence separate from the existential, ontological, reflective totalization. A state of mind not achievable by water, by which I mean your face.
:rofl:
-
Sunny? SW
Looks like precip? Glock
Rowdy with a chance of gangs
Take the 10mm
-
No, for by wet I, without question, mean a state of existence separate from the existential, ontological, reflective totalization. A state of mind not achievable by water, by which I mean your face.
I exist primarily as an ugly giant bag of mostly water. However, that existence exemplifies the abhorrent nature of things which might be. Derivations from otherwise tentative norms is, of course, codified by sessions of listless buffoonery, realized by normative affirmations thereof. To lay claim otherwise is a rejection of your reality, with which I substitute my own.
Brad
-
I said we should start by rendering all persons as reflectively free. Then all of the negative behaviors could well intensify, and, so would reactions thereto...perhaps erasing the ignoble ones via grassroots violence...However, I think raising all persons up to reflective freedom will ennoble and calm everyone.
You have the same trouble Sartre did, only more so.
Grassroots violence on an individual level is simply self-defense. In your utopia, only those capable of effective self-defense (or proactive self-defense) are likely to prosper in the long term. Those incapable of mounting an effective self-defense would then be left to be victimized by anyone of a mind to. And, my friend, there will be plenty who have a mind to. Ultimately those capable of effective self-defense will band together with some of those less capable and provide them with a level of protection, or at the very least retribution after the fact. After some retribution goes too far, or is applied where it shouldn't be, someone will get the great idea of codifying the actions that will result in retribution, as well as the extent of force that is acceptable in various situations. By then your utopia will have rediscovered law.
Or collapsed.
-
Off the top of my head a workable common definition would probably be something like "A set of mores and customs generally agreed upon by a community or society and enforced by the civil authority of that group".
You substituted the actual civil authorities charged with enforcing the law with the law, which is unworkable because the people in that system, being people, can and do break the law.
Nor is it a language (although it could be argued one needs to learn a new language to understand modern law).
Notwithstanding the rest of your pseudo-philosophical navel gazing this statement is objectively false. Human's are not calm when left to their own devices. "Human acts" when unencumbered by societal or social rules are almost universally predatory and not calm. Which makes sense if you actually thought about what drives human behavior. we are basically small pack predators, so stripping away the "law" leaves that animal: A territorial, tribal predator that is neither calm, nor particularly dignified or noble.
If you or M. Sartre thinks otherwise I would ask for an example of any group in the history of humanity where removing societal strictures on behavior resulted in calm dignified behavior from the group.
In America immediately after the 1776 revolution, when there was no governmental structure, everything proceeded calmly and with propriety, due to the need for commerce to transpire.
-
I exist primarily as an ugly giant bag of mostly water. However, that existence exemplifies the abhorrent nature of things which might be. Derivations from otherwise tentative norms is, of course, codified by sessions of listless buffoonery, realized by normative affirmations thereof. To lay claim otherwise is a rejection of your reality, with which I substitute my own.
Have you heard the good news of our Lord and Savior J. P. Sartre (1901-1980)?
-
In America immediately after the 1776 revolution, when there was no governmental structure, everything proceeded calmly and with propriety, due to the need for commerce to transpire.
It seems your comprehension of history is as lacking as your philosophy.
-
You have the same trouble Sartre did, only more so.
Grassroots violence on an individual level is simply self-defense. In your utopia, only those capable of effective self-defense (or proactive self-defense) are likely to prosper in the long term. Those incapable of mounting an effective self-defense would then be left to be victimized by anyone of a mind to. And, my friend, there will be plenty who have a mind to. Ultimately those capable of effective self-defense will band together with some of those less capable and provide them with a level of protection, or at the very least retribution after the fact. After some retribution goes too far, or is applied where it shouldn't be, someone will get the great idea of codifying the actions that will result in retribution, as well as the extent of force that is acceptable in various situations. By then your utopia will have rediscovered law.
Or collapsed.
You predict all of this dire possibility, while, all the while, we have collectively have never been reflectively free, and, hence, have no true idea what will be.
-
It seems your comprehension of history is as lacking as your philosophy.
Precisely what is lacking regarding my original post!
-
In America immediately after the 1776 revolution, when there was no governmental structure, everything proceeded calmly and with propriety, due to the need for commerce to transpire.
At that time, there were still the 13 colonies which had their own laws and law enforcement structure. It wasn't complete anarchy. They did run into a few problems later since the Articles of Confederation didn't provide the best means to settle disputes or deal with outside threats.
I seem to have heard of people referring to "The Law" when talking about the government or the authorities. I don't like it much as it tends to get confusing. When talking about the laws versus the government law enforcement bureaucracy, it helps to use specific and separate terms.
-
I'm going to the grocery now. Should I take the Glock or the Smith & Wesson?
Yes.
-
I'm going to the grocery now. Should I take the Glock or the Smith & Wesson?
Yes.
I recommend the Glock & Wesson semi-automatic assault revolver. Best of both worlds.
-
I recommend the Glock & Wesson semi-automatic assault revolver. Best of both worlds.
The SavChester AR-74 Belt-Fed Lever Action is a much better choice.
Brad
-
The SavChester AR-74 Belt-Fed Lever Action is a much better choice.
Brad
That would be FM Products AR-74 but it isn't belt fed. =)
-
The SavChester AR-74 Belt-Fed Lever Action is a much better choice.
Brad
But it's against the law.
-
But it's against the law.
Not if the shoulder thing that goes up is pinned.
-
In America immediately after the 1776 revolution, when there was no governmental structure, everything proceeded calmly and with propriety, due to the need for commerce to transpire.
But in America immediately after the revolution, there was a governmental structure, and there were laws. The national, federal government was in its infancy, but each state (which had previously existed as a British colony) had a government and a system of laws.
-
You predict all of this dire possibility, while, all the while, we have collectively have never been reflectively free, and, hence, have no true idea what will be.
Okay.
-
Precisely what is lacking regarding my original post!
Yes, that is precisely what is lacking in your original post! And later ones as well!
-
Yes, that is precisely what is lacking in your original post! And later ones as well!
The original and all subsequent posts set forth Sartrean thought, which thought is not lacking.
Naming Sartre's internationally accepted concept of human freedom as lacking vainly attempts to put yourself ahead of Sartre...
-
The SavChester AR-74 Belt-Fed Lever Action is a much better choice.
Brad
Is that the assault rifle version of the AR-74 Belt-fed lever action?
-
The original and all subsequent posts set forth Sartrean thought, which thought is not lacking.
That's just like, your opinion, man...
Naming Sartre's internationally accepted concept of human freedom as lacking vainly attempts to put yourself ahead of Sartre...
Intelligent humans should not appeal to authority, it is a logic fallacy.
-
Yes, that is precisely what is lacking in your original post! And later ones as well!
I was drinking coffee when I read this....
-
The original and all subsequent posts set forth Sartrean thought, which thought is not lacking.
Well, they seem to attempt to set forth Sartrean thought. I'm not sure they succeed. It's been a while since I read up on this branch of existentialist philosophy, but I recall that other folks could make it basically intelligible, which your posts fail to do.
Naming Sartre's internationally accepted concept of human freedom as lacking vainly attempts to put yourself ahead of Sartre...
Internationally accepted might be selling it a little strong. "Internationally known as one version of an midsized offshoot of philosophy" is probably more accurate. The whole "Condemned to Freedom" schtick is a bit pretentious, and definitely not universally accepted.
-
Is that the assault rifle version of the AR-74 Belt-fed lever action?
Only if it has the high-capacity Murder Death Kill accessory grip.
Brad
-
Naming Sartre's internationally accepted concept of human freedom as lacking vainly attempts to put yourself ahead of Sartre...
I have to admit that I needed to refresh my memory on Sartre. I had very briefly looked at his writings some 40 years ago and couldn't for the life of me remember why I found him distasteful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
Sartre held that the Soviet Union was a "revolutionary" state working for the betterment of humanity and could be criticized only for failing to live up to its own ideals,
Sartre believed at this time in the moral superiority of the Eastern Bloc,
How many millions did they murder in the betterment of humanity?
Sartre went to Cuba in the 1960s to meet Fidel Castro and spoke with Ernesto "Che" Guevara. After Guevara's death, Sartre would declare him to be "not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age" and the "era's most perfect man".
Any fan of Guevara is either insane, evil or a combination of the two.
Bosco1, I fear you may have come the wrong place to sell your particular flavor of communism. I really don't think this crowd is buying
-
Well, they seem to attempt to set forth Sartrean thought. I'm not sure they succeed. It's been a while since I read up on this branch of existentialist philosophy, but I recall that other folks could make it basically intelligible, which your posts fail to do.
Internationally accepted might be selling it a little strong. "Internationally known as one version of an midsized offshoot of philosophy" is probably more accurate. The whole "Condemned to Freedom" schtick is a bit pretentious, and definitely not universally accepted.
Everything you say is merely pure unsupported assertion; and, what you have not done is overthrow the central texts from Sartre which I rely on in 3. of the original post, which, of course, you cannot possibly do...
-
But in America immediately after the revolution, there was a governmental structure, and there were laws. The national, federal government was in its infancy, but each state (which had previously existed as a British colony) had a government and a system of laws.
Indeed. It was fundamental to the Patriot movement that they could, and should, rule themselves with their own assemblies, at least in some matters. Their objection to new taxation was less about the tax rate or amount, and very much about who had the right to tax them. Or just read the Declaration, where they cite the King’s interference with their local government and laws. Unless I misunderstand, the people that declared independence were representatives of the governments of each colony.
Theoretically, at least, it could be argued the states/colonies were still under British rule until the treaty of 1783. By then, the Articles of Confederation had been ratified.
I'm not seeing the anarchy.
-
I have to admit that I needed to refresh my memory on Sartre. I had very briefly looked at his writings some 40 years ago and couldn't for the life of me remember why I found him distasteful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
How many millions did they murder in the betterment of humanity?
Any fan of Guevara is either insane, evil or a combination of the two.
Bosco1, I fear you may have come the wrong place to sell your particular flavor of communism. I really don't think this crowd is buying
You are unthinkingly employing an argumentum ad hominum against Sartre, which indeed will not fly.
I am not a communist fool! I am merely employing Sartre's theory of freedom...
-
That's just like, your opinion, man...
Intelligent humans should not appeal to authority, it is a logic fallacy.
If you would actually study the texts I employ from Sartre, and, compare them to the way you actually originate your acts, you would agree with them. I am not appealing to authority here; I am merely employing what are clearly true descriptions of the origination of human acts...
-
You are unthinkingly employing an argumentum ad hominum against Sartre, which indeed will not fly.
I am not a communist fool! I am merely employing Sartre's theory of freedom...
I disagree. While I can respect his early struggles in occupied France I simply will not accept a "theory of freedom" from a man that also extols the virtues of communism and praises a vile murderer like Guevara. Freedom and communism/socialism are wholly incompatible conditions.
-
I am not a communist fool! I am merely employing Sartre's theory of freedom...
Which failed - miserably - like a turd in a punch bowl.
Brad
-
Better be careful, RKL, or JP Sartre gonna git you!
-
If you would actually study the texts I employ from Sartre, and, compare them to the way you actually originate your acts, you would agree with them. I am not appealing to authority here; I am merely employing what are clearly true descriptions of the origination of human acts...
And that is just your opinion, your truth. I do not accept them.
-
Everything you say is merely pure unsupported assertion
Sure it's an assertion. That's what forum posts are. Let's try and get it some support, shall we?
Assertion:
Well, they seem to attempt to set forth Sartrean thought. I'm not sure they succeed. It's been a while since I read up on this branch of existentialist philosophy, but I recall that other folks could make it basically intelligible, which your posts fail to do.
Anyone in this thread that feels Bosco1's post communicate Sartre's ideas in an intelligible way, please throw us a reply that you understood the whole thing.
As for Sartre's international acceptance, i concede you can probably find several college students in different countries that accept his concept of human freedom as true and unlacking, which meets the strict definition of the words "internationally accepted".
-
Was John Philip Sartre the feller what wrote that patriotic music?
-
If you would actually study the texts I employ from Sartre, and, compare them to the way you actually originate your acts, you would agree with them. I am not appealing to authority here; I am merely employing what are clearly true descriptions of the origination of human acts...
Did he accept the divinity of Jesus Christ? The virgin birth?
-
I disagree. While I can respect his early struggles in occupied France I simply will not accept a "theory of freedom" from a man that also extols the virtues of communism and praises a vile murderer like Guevara. Freedom and communism/socialism are wholly incompatible conditions.
To argue against the man and not his position is absolutely fallacious.
-
To argue against the man and not his position is absolutely fallacious.
The man's philosophical position was fallacious:
Sartre held that the Soviet Union was a "revolutionary" state working for the betterment of humanity and could be criticized only for failing to live up to its own ideals, but that critics had to take in mind that the Soviet state needed to defend itself against a hostile world; by contrast Sartre held that the failures of "bourgeois" states were due to their innate shortcomings.[53] The Swiss journalist François Bondy wrote that, based on a reading of Sartre's numerous essays, speeches and interviews "a simple basic pattern never fails to emerge: social change must be comprehensive and revolutionary" and the parties that promote the revolutionary charges "may be criticized, but only by those who completely identify themselves with its purpose, its struggle and its road to power", deeming Sartre's position to be "existentialist".[53]
Sartre believed at this time in the moral superiority of the Eastern Bloc, arguing that this belief was necessary "to keep hope alive"[58] and opposed any criticism of Soviet Union[59] to the extent that Maurice Merleau-Ponty called him an "ultra-Bolshevik".[60] Sartre's expression "workers of Billancourt must not be deprived of their hopes"[60] (Fr. "il ne faut pas désespérer Billancourt"), became a catchphrase meaning communist activists should not tell the whole truth to the workers in order to avoid decline in their revolutionary enthusiasm.[61]
In 1954, just after Stalin's death, Sartre visited the Soviet Union, which he stated he found a "complete freedom of criticism" while condemning the United States for sinking into "prefascism".[62] Sartre wrote about those Soviet writers expelled from the Soviet Writers' Union "still had the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves by writing better books".[63] Sartre's comments on Hungarian revolution of 1956 are quite representative to his frequently contradictory and changing views. On one hand, Sartre saw in Hungary a true reunification between intellectuals and workers[64] only to criticize it for "losing socialist base".[65]
In 1964 Sartre attacked Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" which condemned the Stalinist repressions and purges. Sartre argued that "the masses were not ready to receive the truth".[66]
And you wrote:
When I say "law'' I am referring to that series of persons who make, mediate, and enforce law; I am not referring to grassroots persons..
Exactly who Sartre admired and defended.
You should educate yourself on the people and political philosophies that Sartre admired. Che Guevara shook off the "shackles of law". There are photos of him laughing as he shot men, women, and children.
As to Sartre's claim that the Soviet state was working for the betterment of humanity, I highly recommend that you read The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to get a glimpse into what Sartre stood for and defended.
-
To argue against the man and not his position is absolutely fallacious.
Again, I disagree. How can you have any faith in the philosophy of a man that on one hands argues for freedom and on the other hand praises communism and the murderous practitioners of it. Freedom and communism are mutually exclusive conditions.
That would be like a person trying to teach me about orbital mechanics while simultaneously promoting flat earth theory.
-
The original and all subsequent posts set forth Sartrean thought, which thought is not lacking.
I'm not going to claim Sartre was an idiot, but yes, his philosophy absolutely was lacking. Just as a start he was inconsistent and ambiguous, as has been noted he was an advocate of totalitarianism. I don't think he was quite as Utopian as you, though.
If you're so blindly adherent to him that you fail to even recognize that his philosophy had shortcomings then your faith in him seems to take on an almost religious cast.
In addition, I don't think your posts even do an adequate job of clearly communicating Sartre, at least as far as I've understood him.
This is not attempted to be a slight, but is English a second language for you?
Naming Sartre's internationally accepted concept of human freedom as lacking vainly attempts to put yourself ahead of Sartre...
Do you mean to suggest Sartre's philosophy was complete, perfect, and without flaw? Or that your understanding of it is likewise complete, perfect, and without flaw?
-
Again, I disagree. How can you have any faith in the philosophy of a man that on one hands argues for freedom and on the other hand praises communism and the murderous practitioners of it. Freedom and communism are mutually exclusive conditions.
That would be like a person trying to teach me about orbital mechanics while simultaneously promoting flat earth theory.
One simply has to read, for instance, the texts which I quote from Sartre, and, if one is honest, and actually works to understand what Sartre is describing there, one will see that Sartre's description of the origination of a human act is correct. I did not know a single solitary thing about his politics! An ad hominum argument is when one mistakenly argues against a person himself and not his position; that is what you are doing and it is silly...
-
I'm not going to claim Sartre was an idiot, but yes, his philosophy absolutely was lacking. Just as a start he was inconsistent and ambiguous, as has been noted he was an advocate of totalitarianism. I don't think he was quite as Utopian as you, though.
If you're so blindly adherent to him that you fail to even recognize that his philosophy had shortcomings then your faith in him seems to take on an almost religious cast.
In addition, I don't think your posts even do an adequate job of clearly communicating Sartre, at least as far as I've understood him.
This is not attempted to be a slight, but is English a second language for you?
Do you mean to suggest Sartre's philosophy was complete, perfect, and without flaw? Or that your understanding of it is likewise complete, perfect, and without flaw?
No, I am not claiming Sartre's entire thinking is without foible. All that I am doing is employing his ontological description of how a human act originates. I am not employing his entire radically vast writings. Sartre's description of the origin of a human act is predicated upon Spinoza's "...determinatio negatio est...",i.e., determination is negation. His position is a historical one grounded in Spinoza. Hegel also said "All determination is negation." The origination of a human act is a purely negative process and, law deems itself, a given positive extant language, to be a means to originating human action, which is simply incorrect.
The claim that I am not correctly positing Sartre's theory of the origin of action, and, that I do not make it intelligible is absolutely absurd. I have explained it over and over and over. It is the membership of this forum which appears to be so radically bigoted against Sartre, that they cannot do other than use ad hominem thinking against him, and, apparently are not energetic enough to work to understand the mere two texts of Sartre which I employ.
-
I did not know a single solitary thing about his politics!
His politics are part of his philosophy. If you're not familiar with them, perhaps you should read a bit more about the whole of his philosophical positions before focusing on one aspect of them while ignoring the rest. You're responses thus far to people who don't agree with you have mostly been the wordy and pedantic version of "That's what you are, but what am I?". Telling people that they are arguing wrong will not result in any beneficial debate.
-
One simply has to read, for instance, the texts which I quote from Sartre, and, if one is honest, and actually works to understand what Sartre is describing there, one will see that Sartre's description of the origination of a human act is correct. I did not know a single solitary thing about his politics! An ad hominum argument is when one mistakenly argues against a person himself and not his position; that is what you are doing and it is silly...
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
A persons philosophy does not spring to life out of a vacuum. His perceptions are colored in such a way that he was a supporter of a communist system that was responsible for the murder of millions of people. He had high praise for a murderous psychopath, racist and homophobe (Guevara) and described him as the era's most perfect man.
From such a man I will not only suspect his motivations abut also his end goals. Anyone that promotes communism and is a supporter of Marx and a fan of people like Guevara deserve ridicule and derision.
-
His politics are part of his philosophy. If you're not familiar with them, perhaps you should read a bit more about the whole of his philosophical positions before focusing on one aspect of them while ignoring the rest. You're responses thus far to people who don't agree with you have mostly been the wordy and pedantic version of "That's what you are, but what am I?". Telling people that they are arguing wrong will not result in any beneficial debate.
The use of ad hominem argumentation against Sartre is absolutely inacceptable. Have you ever examined Sartre's entire bibliography?! Well, let me tell you that it is vastly vast. One does not need to study the whole of all his writing to comprehend and employ his explanation of the origin of a human act!
-
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
That dictum is absolutely absurd!
-
The use of ad hominem argumentation against Sartre is absolutely inacceptable.
I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means, or else are purposely misusing it, to once again respond with "that's what you are, but what am I?"
While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
-
The use of ad hominem argumentation against Sartre is absolutely inacceptable. Have you ever examined Sartre's entire bibliography?! Well, let me tell you that it is vastly vast. One does not need to study the whole of all his writing to comprehend and employ his explanation of the origin of a human act!
The world is not a high school debate team competition. As to your claim of ad hominem attacks, we are not criticizing or questioning the person. We are criticizing and questioning the basis of his philosophy based on known and published accounts of his own words.
The Mouse does not care why the cheese is free.
-
The Mouse does not care why the cheese is free.
AD HOMINEM!!!!!!!!!!
=D
-
No, I am not claiming Sartre's entire thinking is without foible.
Good start.
All that I am doing is employing his ontological description of how a human act originates. I am not employing his entire radically vast writings. Sartre's description of the origin of a human act is predicated upon Spinoza's "...determinatio negatio est...",i.e., determination is negation. His position is a historical one grounded in Spinoza.
You're taking a small piece of Sartre's writings, wildly extrapolating from that, then complaining that people who don't immediately fall in line with your philosophy can't possibly know what they're talking about because your boy Sartre backs you up with some word salad that doesn't remotely address what you're trying to claim.
Look, I agree that humans are capable of rejecting law. We do it all the time. We may face consequences for that rejection, but we can do so. I don't see how your utopian view of anarchy flows from that. Nor did Sartre, or Hegel, or Spinoza.
Hegel also said "All determination is negation."
Hegel was another advocate of a powerful, centralized state as well.
The origination of a human act is a purely negative process and, law deems itself, a given positive extant language, to be a means to originating human action, which is simply incorrect.
In what way is law "a given positive extant language"? I'm not even sure what you're trying to convey with that phrase. Again, is English a second language for you? You use (and misuse) a lot of five dollar words, but also get tripped up on a lot of simple words. "Inacceptable", for instance, instead of "unacceptable". I wonder if there is a language barrier that is interfering with this discussion to some extent.
The claim that I am not correctly positing Sartre's theory of the origin of action, and, that I do not make it intelligible is absolutely absurd. I have explained it over and over and over.
If you've had to explain it over and over is it possible you're not doing a great job at communicating it? Or that your understanding conflicts with other's understanding? Surely someone as dedicated as you are to a radical subjectivist like Sartre wouldn't be trying to push his own reality on other independent actors ...
It is the membership of this forum which appears to be so radically bigoted against Sartre, that they cannot do other than use ad hominem thinking against him, and, apparently are not energetic enough to work to understand the mere two texts of Sartre which I employ.
That may be true. Maybe you're the only one who is mentally capable of truly grasping it.
-
I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means, or else are purposely misusing it, to once again respond with "that's what you are, but what am I?"
While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
Certainly I know what it means. It means to argue against the man and not against his position. It is a logical fallacy taught in introductory logic.
-
Certainly I know what it means. It means to argue against the man and not against his position. It is a logical fallacy taught in introductory logic.
Okay, so you're misusing it then. Just so we're clear.
-
Good start.
You're taking a small piece of Sartre's writings, wildly extrapolating from that, then complaining that people who don't immediately fall in line with your philosophy can't possibly know what they're talking about because your boy Sartre backs you up with some word salad that doesn't remotely address what you're trying to claim.
Look, I agree that humans are capable of rejecting law. We do it all the time. We may face consequences for that rejection, but we can do so. I don't see how your utopian view of anarchy flows from that. Nor did Sartre, or Hegel, or Spinoza.
Hegel was another advocate of a powerful, centralized state as well.
In what way is law "a given positive extant language"? I'm not even sure what you're trying to convey with that phrase. Again, is English a second language for you? You use (and misuse) a lot of five dollar words, but also get tripped up on a lot of simple words. "Inacceptable", for instance, instead of "unacceptable". I wonder if there is a language barrier that is interfering with this discussion to some extent.
If you've had to explain it over and over is it possible you're not doing a great job at communicating it? Or that your understanding conflicts with other's understanding? Surely someone as dedicated as you are to a radical subjectivist like Sartre wouldn't be trying to push his own reality on other independent actors ...
That may be true. Maybe you're the only one who is mentally capable of truly grasping it.
Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!? You are hypercritical. No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...
-
Okay, so you're misusing it then. Just so we're clear.
You are dead wrong. I am not misusing it. Members are arguing against the man, not against his position regarding the origin of a human act.
-
This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...
When you get to the point that you think everyone but you is a jackass, it's time to look in the mirror.
-
Certainly I know what it means. It means to argue against the man and not against his position. It is a logical fallacy taught in introductory logic.
We are not arguing against Sartre because we don't like the color of his tie or because we dislike his ethnicity or we think his mother was ugly.
We disagree with his philosophy in part because we question the basis of his understanding of human motivation and his self avowed beliefs in what makes a person or system "good". Most of us here have "been around the block" a few times have been, sometimes unwillingly, students of humanity.
Sartre was a proponent or Marxism. Can you point to any example of a Marxist based system that has uplifted the people under it?
Sartre believed that Guevara was a great man. How can you have any faith in the philosophy of person that considered a blood thirsty, murderous thug such as Guevara to be role model worthy of emulation?
-
You are dead wrong. I am not misusing it. Members are arguing against the man, not against his position regarding the origin of a human act.
No one here has argued against the man, we have argued against his worldview, which is part of his philosophy. If you can't see that now, perhaps you will in Philosophy 201 in your Sophomore year.
-
Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!? You are hypercritical. No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...
What exactly did you expect when you started posting here? Accolades for your benevolent efforts to enlighten us poor benighted heathens?
You proffered a philosophical position and pronounced it as an in immutable truth.
Many of us disagreed based on the philosophers positions and world views each stating why we disagreed with his philosophy in large part because of his overall world view.
You seem to be deeply offended that we haven't lauded your high state of enlightenment and instead or discussing WHY we should change our minds you resort to informing us that we are bigoted and ignorant.
If you expect to go through life and never have people disagree with you then you are in for an interesting ride.
-
vastly vast
highbrow!
-
Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!?
This is a discussion forum. We discuss things here. You haughtily posted an assertion as absolute truth. I disagree with some of what you said and thought it was interesting enough to respond. If you would prefer not to discuss your ideas you don’t have to share them.
You are hypercritical.
Maybe so. That is not my intent, however it is possible I reacted too strongly to your hyperconfidence.
No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...
I was not trying to be offensive. You seem to phrase things awkwardly and misuse words and terms such that they do not parse the way you seem to intend. It reminds me of some people I know for whom English is a second language.
That said, there is far more that I have not mastered than I have mastered. I’m not ashamed to admit that. Even so, the quotes you took from Sartre don’t support the conclusions you claim to draw from that material, your communication is awkward and often unclear, you have failed to respond to a number of valid critiques, and Sartre isn’t the inspired prophet you hold him out to be.
Out of curiosity, is this the first time you’ve tried to pressure test your philosophy?
-
Maybe we should pass a law that there will be no laws.
Then we can all self actualize while our culture and civilization collapses around us :facepalm:
Laws are like "memes", when crafted well or wisely they pass important cultural and civilization building information along to the following generations.
-
No one here has argued against the man, we have argued against his worldview, which is part of his philosophy. If you can't see that now, perhaps you will in Philosophy 201 in your Sophomore year.
I am predicating a critique of law upon Sartre's explication of how a human act originates in the world. I know absolutely nothing of his politics. Several members here are saying that I should reject his explanation of how an act originates, because, he expressed admiration for a Cuban person who was a monster. Sorry, that does not constitute any reason whatsoever to disdain and ignore his theory of origin of a human act; and, to claim to reject Sartre's theory of action because of his regard for some human monster, is clearly an ad hominem fallacy being employed against a man, instead of against his position regarding human action. I cannot and will not do such an absolutely fallacious and absurd thing!
-
This is a discussion forum. We discuss things here. You haughtily posted an assertion as absolute truth. I disagree with some of what you said and thought it was interesting enough to respond. If you would prefer not to discuss your ideas you don’t have to share them.
Maybe so. That is not my intent, however it is possible I reacted too strongly to your hyperconfidence.
I was not trying to be offensive. You seem to phrase things awkwardly and misuse words and terms such that they do not parse the way you seem to intend. It reminds me of some people I know for whom English is a second language.
That said, there is far more that I have not mastered than I have mastered. I’m not ashamed to admit that. Even so, the quotes you took from Sartre don’t support the conclusions you claim to draw from that material, your communication is awkward and often unclear, you have failed to respond to a number of valid critiques, and Sartre isn’t the inspired prophet you hold him out to be.
Out of curiosity, is this the first time you’ve tried to pressure test your philosophy?
The portions of Sartre which I employed absolutely and precisely uphold the position which I posited regarding the law. Which portions of Sartre you referred to as a word salad; which indicates to me that you have no respect whatsoever for the texts, and, you absolutely fail comprehend said texts.
No, this is not the first time I have engaged groups of persons regarding my position regarding law. I have been doing so for years; however, all that I have posted thus far has been in radically technical existential ontological language. For this attempt I worked for more than a week to write my position in the simplest terms I could muster, and, made it short and sweet in three parts. I radically appreciate your concern and participation. You are arguing against my person instead of my position much of the time, which is tiresome.
Please re-study the Sartrean texts upon which I am depending. I think that if you do so you will ultimately see that I am correctly employing said texts....
-
Do you support law?
What the SS did under Hitler was "legal."
The Jim Crow gun laws were "legal."
-
I am predicating a critique of law upon Sartre's explication of how a human act originates in the world. I know absolutely nothing of his politics. Several members here are saying that I should reject his explanation of how an act originates, because, he expressed admiration for a Cuban person who was a monster. Sorry, that does not constitute any reason whatsoever to disdain and ignore his theory of origin of a human act; and, to claim to reject Sartre's theory of action because of his regard for some human monster, is clearly an ad hominem fallacy being employed against a man, instead of against his position regarding human action. I cannot and will not do such an absolutely fallacious and absurd thing!
You missed the point, entirely.
If Hitler spouted these same philosophies would you accept them at face value?
I believe that Sartre had a fallacious understanding of human nature and the motivations underlying it therefore giving him a unsupportable foundation for his beliefs. My belief that his understanding human nature being deficient led to a philosophy that is deficient and results in just so much clap-trap nonsense.
My evidence supporting that belief is the man's support of and admiration of murderous regimes and individuals while at the same time touting human freedom.
I also believe that the rare cogent points he made were purely accidental, much like the old saw that even a blind hogs finds an acorn from time to time.
-
1. You aren't wrong that we don't have a ton of respect for the texts of a Communist existentialist around here. Perhaps you should have read some of the texts this forum's name is taken from.
2. If that's a week's effort in clear and concise communication, another week, at least, was in order.
3. In my admittedly brief college philosophy course I saw nothing in Sartre's works that struck me as a cosmic truth. As I mentioned before his concept of "condemned to freedom" doesn't match my experience in the real world. Like many of the 19th and 20th century philosophers he said insulated from the world and contemplated obtuse theories that they never personally had to see tried. When they were tried and the results of those theories were genocide they harumphed, said the people implemented their theories incorrectly, and went back to their pampered, paid for, celebrity lifestyle. That's not attacking the man, that pointing out his inexperience with human nature outside sycophants, while philosophizing on human nature.
-
What exactly did you expect when you started posting here? Accolades for your benevolent efforts to enlighten us poor benighted heathens?
You proffered a philosophical position and pronounced it as an in immutable truth.
Many of us disagreed based on the philosophers positions and world views each stating why we disagreed with his philosophy in large part because of his overall world view.
You seem to be deeply offended that we haven't lauded your high state of enlightenment and instead or discussing WHY we should change our minds you resort to informing us that we are bigoted and ignorant.
If you expect to go through life and never have people disagree with you then you are in for an interesting ride.
Yes you have exhibited a profound bigoted ignorance, via doing ad hominem fallacious argument against Sartre. Sartre's politics are not reasonable reason to reject his theory of origin of human acts! If I were to tell you, at this moment, that I cannot possibly accept your writings, because you voted for a particular candidate in a recent election, that would be a personal attack against your person and, a failure to reason against your written position per se.
-
Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!?
Why don't you do the same for us?
You came here and opened this discussion. No one has said that you are not free to be who you are or to say whatever you want to say. But your freedom to be who you are and to say what you want is not dependent on anyone's acceptance of or belief in anything you say. If you believe each individual should be free to express his or her thoughts, then you have to accept that other individuals -- who may not agree with your thoughts - are equally free to say whatever they want.
-
You missed the point, entirely.
If Hitler spouted these same philosophies would you accept them at face value?
I believe that Sartre had a fallacious understanding of human nature and the motivations underlying it therefore giving him a unsupportable foundation for his beliefs. My belief that his understanding human nature being deficient led to a philosophy that is deficient and results in just so much clap-trap nonsense.
My evidence supporting that belief is the man's support of and admiration of murderous regimes and individuals while at the same time touting human freedom.
I also believe that the rare cogent points he made were purely accidental, much like the old saw that even a blind hogs finds an acorn from time to time.
You completely and absolutely radically amaze me! Your capacity to kid yourself about yourself is profoundly incredible. That you seriously expect me to absolutely disregard a beautiful theory of the origin of our human acts, simply because Sartre believed this or that about communism, is profoundly absurd.
-
Why don't you do the same for us?
You came here and opened this discussion. No one has said that you are not free to be who you are or to say whatever you want to say. But your freedom to be who you are and to say what you want is not dependent on anyone's acceptance of or belief in anything you say. If you believe each individual should be free to express his or her thoughts, then you have to accept that other individuals -- who may not agree with your thoughts - are equally free to say whatever they want.
Yes, I was somewhat stressed from all of this intense interaction when I wrote that. I should not have said it. Of course you guys are free to write whatever.
-
highbrow!
Thank you much!
-
You completely and absolutely radically amaze me! Your capacity to kid yourself about yourself is profoundly incredible. That you seriously expect me to absolutely disregard a beautiful theory of the origin of our human acts, simply because Sartre believed this or that about communism, is profoundly absurd.
So far you are the only one here that thinks his theories are beautiful. When one of us disagrees with your position you accuse us of bigotry and ignorance, which by the way is an ad hominem attack.
Your capacity to kid yourself about yourself is profoundly incredible, absurd and disrespectful of other peoples beliefs. I hope that when you grow up you will come to understand that your opinions are just that, opinions. Yours is no more valuable or valid than mine or anyone else on this forum or anywhere else you may find yourself. Denigrating people that disagree with you won't get you very far in a polite society.
I find your demands that we agree with your position extremely immature and arrogant beyond measure. My beliefs are based on 60+ years of life experience. Yours appear to be based on the ramblings of a lunatic pulled from a dog eared philosophy text book in some two bit liberal arts college.
This clip pretty well sums up my thoughts on your rant -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM
Have a nice day!
=D
-
Thank you much!
I'm not convinced that your posts aren't in bad faith.
-
The portions of Sartre which I employed absolutely and precisely uphold the position which I posited regarding the law. Which portions of Sartre you referred to as a word salad; which indicates to me that you have no respect whatsoever for the texts, and, you absolutely fail comprehend said texts.
No, this is not the first time I have engaged groups of persons regarding my position regarding law. I have been doing so for years; however, all that I have posted thus far has been in radically technical existential ontological language. For this attempt I worked for more than a week to write my position in the simplest terms I could muster, and, made it short and sweet in three parts. I radically appreciate your concern and participation. You are arguing against my person instead of my position much of the time, which is tiresome.
Please re-study the Sartrean texts upon which I am depending. I think that if you do so you will ultimately see that I am correctly employing said texts....
I took a 300 level course called “Social and Political Philosophy” at the university of Oregon. Most of the philosophy texts we read (and Hannah Arendt was easily the worst offender of those texts) were all a bunch of pretentious nonsense masquerading as enlightened arguments. Sartre is no different. Philosophy types are the champions of saying absolutely nothing of substance among voluminous verbiage.
-
Maybe we should pass a law that there will be no laws.
Then we can all self actualize while our culture and civilization collapses around us :facepalm:
Laws are like "memes", when crafted well or wisely they pass important cultural and civilization building information along to the following generations.
There is a sense wherein it can be said that there is no law, for, indeed, law is not actually determinative of human conduct.
Our civilization is collapsing given all this constant ongoing mass murder.
-
There is a sense wherein it can be said that there is no law, for, indeed, law is not actually determinative of human conduct.
Our civilization is collapsing given all this constant ongoing mass murder.
Who here is arguing that law is determinative of human conduct?
LAW
: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority: as
1
: a command or provision enacted by a legislature
2
: something (as a judicial decision) authoritatively accorded binding or controlling effect in the administration of justice
-
Let's step back a moment. As far as I can tell you've offered three fundamental assertions confused by contradictory and confusing side quests. Frankly, your apparent weaknesses in writing and the way you improperly phrase things in such a way that you are saying something very different than you claim to intend has repeatedly derailed the discussion.
Regardless, the three fundamental assertions I've gathered are:
1. Law does not perfectly define or control human action.
This is really the only element for which you have provided supporting arguments. I mostly agree with it, but I'd note that in many cases human action does tend to follow certain paths, especially when confronted with extremes such as threat of force ... which is typically the enforcement mechanism for law. So this is literally true, but in practice often not as clear-cut.
2. Law is malicious, evil, hateful, rapacious and doubleplus ungood.
Again, there is no real support for this assertion, but I'll agree partially. Like all exercise of power, law has the capacity to be misused and abused. On the other hand, law has the capacity of carrying forward historical practices that worked well. Law has the ability to (imperfectly) protect people, to set guiderails on their behavior and to punish people who do evil. The "law=EVIL" schtick is absolutely comically lacking in nuance. As has been noted, there are plenty of places where law does not exist. I do not choose to relocate to those places with my family.
3. If people become educated by Bosco1 they will become as peaceful as lambs and there will be nothing but rainbows and buttercups and daisies.
Hogwash. Utter hogwash. Your only defense for this assertion was the old "But, but, but, real communism responsible anarchy has never been tried!"
So, in short, the Sartre deviation is really a non-issue as Sartre doesn't progress your argument past the first point. You've made two unsupported assertions which I largely disagree with. Do you think I'm missing something important?
-
I took a 300 level course called “Social and Political Philosophy” at the university of Oregon. Most of the philosophy texts we read (and Hannah Arendt was easily the worst offender of those texts) were all a bunch of pretentious nonsense masquerading as enlightened arguments. Sartre is no different. Philosophy types are the champions of saying absolutely nothing of substance among voluminous verbiage.
The portion of Sartre which I appreciate is his study of being, of what we are as human beings; which is known as ontology. When one first encounters his idiosyncratic language of ontology, that language is radically unintelligible, which, however, does not mean it is in fact not intelligible language. It requires long and intense study to begin to learn and understand the existential language of ontology. Decades actually.
I went to college intermittently from 1963 to 2007. Chicks; employment; interesting studies; the GI Bill. Took only two degrees.
You need to give it lots of time if you are truly into philosophy/ideaology.
-
Ever notice that a whole bunch of "academics" seem to think that theory trumps experience? And then refuse to believe differently when presented with different evidence...
<do we have a bumblebee emoji?>
-
And... Did you notice that your well-paid teachers didn't want you to think for yourself, but instead wished to have you parrot what they had to say?
-
Let's step back a moment. As far as I can tell you've offered three fundamental assertions confused by contradictory and confusing side quests. Frankly, your apparent weaknesses in writing and the way you improperly phrase things in such a way that you are saying something very different than you claim to intend has repeatedly derailed the discussion.
Regardless, the three fundamental assertions I've gathered are:
1. Law does not perfectly define or control human action.
This is really the only element for which you have provided supporting arguments. I mostly agree with it, but I'd note that in many cases human action does tend to follow certain paths, especially when confronted with extremes such as threat of force ... which is typically the enforcement mechanism for law. So this is literally true, but in practice often not as clear-cut.
2. Law is malicious, evil, hateful, rapacious and doubleplus ungood.
Again, there is no real support for this assertion, but I'll agree partially. Like all exercise of power, law has the capacity to be misused and abused. On the other hand, law has the capacity of carrying forward historical practices that worked well. Law has the ability to (imperfectly) protect people, to set guiderails on their behavior and to punish people who do evil. The "law=EVIL" schtick is absolutely comically lacking in nuance. As has been noted, there are plenty of places where law does not exist. I do not choose to relocate to those places with my family.
3. If people become educated by Bosco1 they will become as peaceful as lambs and there will be nothing but rainbows and buttercups and daisies.
Hogwash. Utter hogwash. Your only defense for this assertion was the old "But, but, but, real communism responsible anarchy has never been tried!"
So, in short, the Sartre deviation is really a non-issue as Sartre doesn't progress your argument past the first point. You've made two unsupported assertions which I largely disagree with. Do you think I'm missing something important?
With 3. you are being totally absurd, and, as you repeatedly do to me, employ arguments by extension (a type of logical fallacy), whereby you put me out on a limb and saw it off!
With 2. you radically exaggerate and extend what I have said. I said law is just a pursuit of money.
With 1. you are correct.
I radically respect and appreciate your concern and extreme effort. Upon reflection I now realize that I am radically off the wall here. I am attempting to overthrow the law at the theoretical level! Which is a radically idiosyncratic thing to do, and, I believe I have done it.
It is not fair of me to expect you to so rapidly comprehend Sartre's theory of origin of human action. I am undertaking a strange and new thing here and, should not be suprised to be scorned and ridiculed.
-
And... Did you notice that your well-paid teachers didn't want you to think for yourself, but instead wished to have you parrot what they had to say?
No, not at all. One is constantly writing papers, which requires independent thinking!
-
What light do you have to shed on the nature of being?
Other than advocating the dissolution of our form of government and culture what exactly is the purpose behind your endeavor in this quite little corner of the internet?
-
Ever notice that a whole bunch of "academics" seem to think that theory trumps experience? And then refuse to believe differently when presented with different evidence...
<do we have a bumblebee emoji?>
I have.
-
Who here is arguing that law is determinative of human conduct?
Perhaps you have never been in a courtroom and heard a judge say he is determined by
law?
It is a tacit presumption that law punishes persons for not being determined not to act on such and such a wise by law.
-
So you failed to notice...
-
This is not attempted to be a slight, but is English a second language for you?
I was beginning to wonder that too.
Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!? You are hypercritical. No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...
Because that's what we do here, especially in the politics forum. Would you rather everyone just ignore you? No one here has censored you or banned you (which is well within the powers of several people in this thread), and several folks have engaged you in debate.
-
What light do you have to shed on the nature of being?
Other than advocating the dissolution of our form of government and culture what exactly is the purpose behind your endeavor in this quite little corner of the internet?
Our being, i.e., human being, has no "nature". We are nothingnesses, i.e., my consciousness is nothingness constantly engaged in what is not. At this instant I am imagining what I should say to you next, which now is not. I am continually making nots into extants...
Our gov't and culture are not suddenly going to go poof! My purpose here is to engage in a dialectic, which is how we will compose/realize a possible future.
-
So you failed to notice...
Yes, did not see that.
-
Our being, i.e., human being, has no "nature". We are nothingnesses, i.e., my consciousness is nothingness constantly engaged in what is not. At this instant I am imagining what I should say to you next, which now is not. I am continually making nots into extants....
Ah, metaphysics - the art of questioning everything, answering nothing, and spouting useless jargon in lieu of cogent thought.
Brad
-
I am attempting to overthrow the law at the theoretical level! Which is a radically idiosyncratic thing to do, and, I believe I have done it.
I disagree.
-
I disagree.
So, then, let me know precisely why you disagree...
-
Ah, metaphysics - the art of questioning everything, answering nothing, and spouting useless jargon in lieu of cogent thought.
Brad
So, then, lay some cogent thought on us man...
-
Bosco, I think the rest of us are put off, because you seem to be offended, even angry, that no one else here values Sartre's insights the way you do. We don't feel we're obliged to.
For what it's worth, I claim no knowledge of Sartre, either to praise or condemn him. As for his theories about the origin of human acts, I think I have a fairly good grasp of that (and I'm pretty sure law is only part of that), so I don't think I want to prioritize the time or mental effort to look at alternative views. I suppose that could change, but I doubt it.
-
I'm confused, can someone explain how this theory fits in with Dianetics?
-
Bosco, I think the rest of us are put off, because you seem to be offended, even angry, that no one else here values Sartre's insights the way you do. We don't feel we're obliged to.
For what it's worth, I claim no knowledge of Sartre, either to praise or condemn him. As for his theories about the origin of human acts, I think I have a fairly good grasp of that (and I'm pretty sure law is only part of that), so I don't think I want to prioritize the time or mental effort to look at alternative views. I suppose that could change, but I doubt it.
Perd;
I did not get angered because others here do not value Sartre's insights. What really got me was the way one of your administrative police types accused me of not understanding what an argumentum ad hominem state of affairs is, and, accused me of misusing said fallacy, in an attempt to possibly make some sort of trouble for me. And, the persons doing the fallacious assertions, adamantly denying their misstep, was really too very bizarre.
-
Perd;
I did not get angered because others here do not value Sartre's insights. What really got me was the way one of your administrative police types accused me of not understanding what an argumentum ad hominem state of affairs is, and, accused me of misusing said fallacy, in an attempt to possibly make some sort of trouble for me. And, the persons doing the fallacious assertions, adamantly denying their misstep, was really too very bizarre.
Don't get upset, really, it was nothing.
-
With 3. you are being totally absurd, and, as you repeatedly do to me, employ arguments by extension (a type of logical fallacy), whereby you put me out on a limb and saw it off!
Nope. Sure, I'm gently mocking your silly position, but I've pretty accurately represented what you've said. Somewhat amusingly, it might be true that: What Bosco1 Means is Not Determinative of What he Says.
But here, let me show you how I got there. When asked for an alternative to law, your proposal was:
First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm. The final totalization of what civilization can be can only be the resultant of this type of dialogic interaction...
When I pointed out that not everyone might be incapable or unwilling to control themselves, or might want to take advantage of those weaker than them, you said:
I said we should start by rendering all persons as reflectively free. Then all of the negative behaviors could well intensify, and, so would reactions thereto...perhaps erasing the ignoble ones via grassroots violence...However, I think raising all persons up to reflective freedom will ennoble and calm everyone.
I pointed out that this was simply self-defense and that not everyone is capable of effective self defense, and that law itself grew from that fact, your response was:
You predict all of this dire possibility, while, all the while, we have collectively have never been reflectively free, and, hence, have no true idea what will be.
If you feel like you've got a better way of phrasing Bosco1 Assertion #3 then please do so.
With 2. you radically exaggerate and extend what I have said. I said law is just a pursuit of money.
Do you believe "law is just a pursuit of money" is either a universal truth or represents your complete understanding of law? Does law serve any positive purpose? Is the overthrow of law likely to have any foreseeable negative consequences? Do laws - or the possible consequences for their violation - ever influence human behavior?
You are starting with a relatively minor but accurate point (people can choose to disobey law) but after that point you have failed to demonstrate any of your pronouncements.
With 1. you are correct.
Great. That's a starting point.
With the understanding that you are capable of making decisions independent of your situation, would you agree that often your decisions are made in light of, and with respect to your situation? Let's set aside law for the moment and use the example of hunger that I brought up earlier. Do you ever take your hunger into consideration when deciding whether or not to eat? Obviously you are capable of choosing to fast and would theoretically be capable of choosing to starve yourself, but it seems obvious that some of the elements that go into choosing to eat are external to your will.
There is no conflict with Sartre's theory of existential freedom to note that all decisions we make are shaped, impacted, and influenced by (not to say determined by) circumstances and situations even if those decisions are not defined by circumstance and situation. Would you agree?
Upon reflection I now realize that I am radically off the wall here.
This is something that you and I can agree on unreservedly.
I am attempting to overthrow the law at the theoretical level! Which is a radically idiosyncratic thing to do, and, I believe I have done it.
I cannot argue whether or not you have succeeded in doing this, but I can say with certainty that you have utterly failed to demonstrate it here. Your arguments are poorly and carelessly worded, your understanding of the concepts in question appears narrow and without nuance, and you regularly make wild and illogical leaps which are not supported by what little you have shown.
If you want to take a shot at buttressing and fleshing out your arguments (especially for Bosco1 Assertions #2 and #3) I'd be interested to see what you have to say.
-
Perd;
I did not get angered because others here do not value Sartre's insights. What really got me was the way one of your administrative police types accused me of not understanding what an argumentum ad hominem state of affairs is, and, accused me of misusing said fallacy, in an attempt to possibly make some sort of trouble for me. And, the persons doing the fallacious assertions, adamantly denying their misstep, was really too very bizarre.
Now you're accusing me of not understanding what you said. You are clearly angered by others' failure to adore Sartre. It may help you to admit this to yourself, and examine whether your attitude is correct.
Also, you are wrong about the nature of ad hominem.
-
"Tell me more about your cousins," Rorschach sent.
"Our cousins lie about the family tree," Sascha replied, "with nieces and nephews and Neandertals. We do not like annoying cousins."
"We'd like to know about this tree."
Sascha muted the channel and gave us a look that said Could it be any more obvious? "It couldn't have parsed that. There were three linguistic ambiguities in there. It just ignored them."
-
Perd;
I did not get angered because others here do not value Sartre's insights. What really got me was the way one of your administrative police types accused me of not understanding what an argumentum ad hominem state of affairs is, and, accused me of misusing said fallacy, in an attempt to possibly make some sort of trouble for me. And, the persons doing the fallacious assertions, adamantly denying their misstep, was really too very bizarre.
What's bizarre is that you continue to misuse "ad hominem" as a way to avoid any critiques of your fallacious theory. You didn't come here to discuss anything. You came here to demand that we all bow to your "brilliance". After having been banned for doing the same thing on another forum. If all you can ever do is reply "AD HOMINEM!!!", then your thesis is weak.
-
The impressive of this thread is that Bosco1 took a thesis that falls squarely into the "No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock" category (The law does not determine human actions), and managed through heretofore rarely seen levels of obtuse writing to get us to spend 7 odd pages discussing a blindingly obvious premise.
-
I disagree.
So, then, let me know precisely why you disagree...
Okay. The statement with which I disagreed was:
I am attempting to overthrow the law at the theoretical level! Which is a radically idiosyncratic thing to do, and, I believe I have done it.
1. You may believe that you have succeeded in overthrowing the law at a theoretical level (whatever that means). I do not think you have accomplished any such thing.
2. If you really parse the language, "attempting" to do something essentially implies and conveys failure. If I say "I attempted to lift my house off its foundation," what is unsaid is that I was not successful. Had I been successful, I would have simply said, "I lifted my house off its foundation."
-
When are we going to realize we are being suckered?
Bosco1 is just a clever jokester.
Terry, 230RN
-
When are we going to realize we are being suckered?
Oh, I think that's been realized, but there is more amusement to be wrung out of this.
-
I realized it pages ago, but the Munroe's Law (https://exceptionnotfound.net/15-fundamental-laws-of-the-internet/) states we must try to convince Bosco1, and I find myself unable to act contrary to that law.
-
Now you're accusing me of not understanding what you said. You are clearly angered by others' failure to adore Sartre. It may help you to admit this to yourself, and examine whether your attitude is correct.
Also, you are wrong about the nature of ad hominem.
I am perfectly correct in my description of the argumentum ad hominem:
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.
All of you guys are so dense and inept at comprehending philosophical/logical constructs, while denying that you continually argue against persons, instead of positions, that you make yourselves appear indubitably stupid! All you do is continually argue against my person instead of my position too...
When I say I am not angry that you don't appreciate the texts from Sartre upon which I rely, why don't you believe me !? I am not angry about that, just radically disappointed...
-
Please continue, guys. I'm probably having as much fun watching you get suckered as Bosco1 is in suckering you.
Carry on.
Terry, "indubitably stupid," 230RN
-
I don't know if I would say "clever."
Theories, especially the theories of cloistered academics, mean next to nothing next to knowledge gained from practice.
-
...Double post
-
T h a t b o t h a s a g r e a t t h e s a u r u s.
-
Shhhhh, guys. Don't tell him, but I'm trying to bait him into spewing more pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Mum's the word. Let's see if it worked.
Shhhh.... Terry
-
There is no conflict with Sartre's theory of existential freedom to note that all decisions we make are shaped, impacted, and influenced by (not to say determined by) circumstances and situations even if those decisions are not defined by circumstance and situation. Would you agree?
With the above you demonstrate your complete failure to see the core of my position, which I have incessantly reiterated, i.e., no given/factual state whatsoever is capable of determining a human act, and, law is a given factual state.
It is really so radically simple what I am maintaining. Givens are not determinative of human action, law is a given, hence law is not determinative of human conduct.
Your continual insults are a horrid bore...you call my position silly; while there can be nothing more serious than questioning the viability of law per se.
Get off my case and cease argumentum ad hominem against my person. Overthrow the Sartreian texts upon which I predicate my critique of law, by reasoning; and, quit continually screwing with my person!
-
I am perfectly correct in my description of the argumentum ad hominem:
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.
All of you guys are so dense and inept at comprehending philosophical/logical constructs, while denying that you continually argue against persons, instead of positions, that you make yourselves appear indubitably stupid! All you do is continually argue against my person instead of my position too...
When I say I am not angry that you don't appreciate the texts from Sartre upon which I rely, why don't you believe me !? I am not angry about that, just radically disappointed...
Well, at least you understand how to execute ad hominem, if not how to recognize it.
But hey, I'm just dense and inept...
-
If words cannot be understood, then what does government mean?
-
With the above you demonstrate your complete failure to see the core of my position, which I have incessantly reiterated, i.e., no given/factual state whatsoever is capable of determining a human act, and, law is a given factual state.
Please reread my statement once again. I specifically said that circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.
Do you really disagree with that?
It is really so radically simple what I am maintaining. Givens are not determinative of human action, law is a given, hence law is not determinative of human conduct.
A circumstance does not need to absolutely determine a person's action to influence it. If you don't believe circumstances influence your actions then I'm not sure that you can be said to be conscious. However, I happen to know for a fact that circumstances have determined your conduct. When people here didn't receive your haughty pronouncements positively you got snippy. Is that not your human action slavishly responding to your circumstance and situation?
Your continual insults are a horrid bore...you call my position silly; while there can be nothing more serious than questioning the viability of law per se.
Yes, your position is silly. As dogmush said, you've taken a minor but valid observation and extrapolated from that to the point that it bears no resemblance to reality.
I agree that people can choose to defy law.
I agree that law can be corrupt or rapacious.
I do not agree that law is universally corrupt and rapacious. You've provided no support for that assertion.
I do not agree that Bosco1 telling everyone to read Sartre is likely to "raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm" or that it will lead to a "final totalization of what civilization can be." You've provided no support for that assertion either.
Overthrow the Sartreian texts upon which I predicate my critique of law, by reasoning;
Show me the Sartreian texts you're using to support the items I disagree with (noted above in red) and I'd be happy to address them directly. The texts you've posted so far do not support the assertions you've made.
and, quit continually screwing with my person!
I'm flattered, but you can rest assured that I will not be screwing with your person, either continually or intermittently.
-
All of you guys are so dense and inept at comprehending philosophical/logical constructs, while denying that you continually argue against persons, instead of positions, that you make yourselves appear indubitably stupid! All you do is continually argue against my person instead of my position too...
You should try connecting with your audience and try to find commonalities. For instance, what is your daily carry pistol?
-
Well, at least you understand how to execute ad hominem, if not how to recognize it.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwondermark.com%2Fc%2F2014-09-19-1062sea.png&hash=70ed171e94068e033f85bb8ca076cfd2de170513)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwondermark.com%2Fc%2F2014-09-19-1062sea.png&hash=70ed171e94068e033f85bb8ca076cfd2de170513)
:laugh:
-
J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”
-
The impressive of this thread is that Bosco1 took a thesis that falls squarely into the "No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock" category (The law does not determine human actions), and managed through heretofore rarely seen levels of obtuse writing to get us to spend 7 odd pages discussing a blindingly obvious premise.
It seems to me that The Law tends to become evil/oppressive when it tries to determine human actions rather than simple providing a loose boundary/limit on those actions. That change generally indicates a government that no longer sees people as equals.
-
You should try connecting with your audience and try to find commonalities. For instance, what is your daily carry pistol?
I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!
-
It seems to me that The Law tends to become evil/oppressive when it tries to determine human actions rather than simple providing a loose boundary/limit on those actions. That change generally indicates a government that no longer sees people as equals.
Totally excellent observation 94.
-
J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”
No ... that does support the initial claim that everyone agrees with to some extent - i.e. that law does not perfectly dictate human action.
It does not address the following assertions:
What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...
First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm. The final totalization of what civilization can be can only be the resultant of this type of dialogic interaction...
Do you disagree with the following statement?
Circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.
-
I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!
What part of Ky? I'm in Ky too.
-
I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!
This man has clearly never seen Justified!
-
I specifically said that circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.
No, that is not what you said, here is what you said:
There is no conflict with Sartre's theory of existential freedom to note that all decisions we make are shaped, impacted, and influenced by (not to say determined by) circumstances and situations even if those decisions are not defined by circumstance and situation.
You:""...not to say determined by..." circumstances...
-
Just a side thought of mine regarding the history of things: About when was it that it became commonly known just how many people were killed/murdered under Stalin and Communism in general? When did all that come out? Was that in the 1950's?
Similar question in regard to Che Guevara.
Generally, communists regimes have had plenty of sycophants in the media who have no problem editing news and commentary to leave out the bad/evil acts and make the rest of the world think everyone is happy. That is apart from the oppressive media censorship communist regimes also enact. I imagine there were a lot of people who were taken in by the propaganda who did not know the truth or ignored it.
-
Bosco1,
Do you disagree with the following statement?
Circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.
-
I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!
Okay then, as long as you have a wheelbarrow.
-
The impressive of this thread is that Bosco1 took a thesis that falls squarely into the "No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock" category (The law does not determine human actions)
Yes, I have been wondering who Sartre (or Bosco) is supposed to be arguing with, on that point.
-
No ... that does support the initial claim that everyone agrees with to some extent - i.e. that law does not perfectly dictate human action.
It does not address the following assertions:
Do you disagree with the following statement?
Circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.
Sure I agree with that.
-
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
-
What part of Ky? I'm in Ky too.
Lebanon in Marion County. Moved here from CA twelve years ago and have twelve acres. Marion County is in the center of the state.
Where are you?
-
Sure I agree with that.
Awesome.
So given that, what is your argument against law?
-
The impressive of this thread is that Bosco1 took a thesis that falls squarely into the "No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock" category (The law does not determine human actions), and managed through heretofore rarely seen levels of obtuse writing to get us to spend 7 odd pages discussing a blindingly obvious premise.
Now many members are agreeing that law is not determinative of human action. Nonetheless, you have never ever heard anyone but me make that claim! Have you!?
-
Now many members are agreeing that law is not determinative of human action. Nonetheless, you have never ever heard anyone but me make that claim! Have you!?
Do you really believe you are the first person ever to remark that laws are not followed perfectly? :O
-
Now many members are agreeing that law is not determinative of human action. Nonetheless, you have never ever heard anyone but me make that claim! Have you!?
What? you believe you have uncovered an immutable truth for the ages?
Kind of akin to pronouncing that the sky is blue, grass is green and water is wet.
You sir are an absolute genius.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Awesome.
So given that, what is your argument against law?
What I am against regarding law is that the persons who mediate and make law, legislators; judges; police, punish persons for not being determined to action or inaction by law, while all the while, law is not, cannot be, determinative/originative of human action, which is precisely what legislators; judges; and police believe, i.e., that language of law is determinative/originative of their actions and, of human actions. Thus we live in a world running on the basis that law is a determinative of human conduct, which is entirely mistaken!
-
Do you really believe you are the first person ever to remark that laws are not followed perfectly? :O
That is not what I am saying, i.e., that laws are not followed perfectly. I am the first to clearly state that law is not determinative/originative of human action, and, to support my position with the thought of an internationally renowned scholar, J.P. Sartre.
-
That is not what I am saying, i.e., that laws are not followed perfectly. I am the first to clearly state that law is not determinative/originative of human action, and, to support my position with the thought of an internationally renowned scholar, J.P. Sartre.
If this is you communicating clearly, I'd hate to see unclear communication!
-
If this is you communicating clearly, I'd hate to see unclear communication!
Yes, this is me communicating clearly. Sure you hate to see unclear statements...
It is not very clear what you are trying to say with that obtuse statement.
-
What I am against regarding law is that the persons who mediate and make law, legislators; judges; police, punish persons for not being determined to action or inaction by law, while all the while, law is not, cannot be, determinative/originative of human action, which is precisely what legislators; judges; and police believe, i.e., that language of law is determinative/originative of their actions and, of human actions. Thus we live in a world running on the basis that law is a determinative of human conduct, which is entirely mistaken!
Law is not punishing people for failing to be possessed by law like automatons. Law is the way a group of people puts teeth to their axiological conclusions. It is transactional. If you cross this line we will do bad things to you - so don't cross that line.
I am the first to clearly state that law is not determinative/originative of human action
Do you believe that punishing someone for violating a law is saying that the law is determinative/originative of human action?
-
Law is not punishing people for failing to be possessed by law like automatons. Law is the way a group of people puts teeth to their axiological conclusions. It is transactional. If you cross this line we will do bad things to you - so don't cross that line.
Do you believe that punishing someone for violating a law is saying that the law is determinative/originative of human action?
The person(s) punishing another person purportedly by law, for a violation of law, deems law to be determinative, and, yes, punishing someone is, in error, saying that law is determinative of human action; while, all the while, law is not and cannot possibly be determinative of human conduct...Thus, extant law is an ugly and screwed-up mess of dire ontological error.
-
Lebanon in Marion County. Moved here from CA twelve years ago and have twelve acres. Marion County is in the center of the state.
Where are you?
Louisville
-
The person(s) punishing another person purportedly by law, for a violation of law, deems law to be determinative, and, yes, punishing someone is, in error, saying that law is determinative of human action; while, all the while, law is not and cannot possibly be determinative of human conduct...Thus, extant law is an ugly and screwed-up mess of dire ontological error.
Under what conditions in your mind can punishment ever be justly meted out?
-
Louisville
Wow, the big city. I was there for the first time recently. Very big. Very bustling. All these larger towns in KY are brand spanking new looking, with businesses booming everywhere in beautiful new buildings.
-
The idea of a govt being a necessary evil intended to control the vices/immoral conduct of man is not a new concept. I can't remember if I ever read all of Thomas Paign's Common Sense, but this paragraph below was at the beginning. He didn't invent the idea. That was all part of the debate around the founding of this country.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a Government, which we might expect in a country without Government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other law-giver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
-
Under what conditions in your mind can punishment ever be justly meted out?
I do agree that punishment does need to be done, like for all this recent mass murder.
At this point it would be best if all our inauthoritative authorities were to be honest, and say that they agree that they are not in fact being determined by law when punishing someone; then, we could proceed in honesty by simply saying that it is the will of the majority that mass murderers be put to death...
-
Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.
-
Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy...
Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
-
The idea of a govt being a necessary evil intended to control the vices/immoral conduct of man is not a new concept. I can't remember if I ever read all of Thomas Paign's Common Sense, but this paragraph below was at the beginning. He didn't invent the idea. That was all part of the debate around the founding of this country.
Wow 94 that is a fantastic Paine piece. Thanks a million.
-
I do agree that punishment does need to be done, like for all this recent mass murder.
At this point it would be best if all our inauthoritative authorities were to be honest, and say that they agree that they are not in fact being determined by law when punishing someone; then, we could proceed in honesty by simply saying that it is the will of the majority that mass murderers be put to death...
So you don't have an issue with people being punished under the law, you just have an issue with how the enforcers of the law phrase it?
According to your interpretation of things, wouldn't any punishment for violating any code (mass murder or otherwise) be equally punishing people for human action not being determined by whatever code was violated?
-
Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy...
Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
Wow Perd, you are a heavy dude indeed. Excellent pronouncements!
-
So you don't have an issue with people being punished under the law, you just have an issue with how the enforcers of the law phrase it?
According to your interpretation of things, wouldn't any punishment for violating any code (mass murder or otherwise) be equally punishing people for human action not being determined by whatever code was violated?
Yes, indeed, I have an issue with people being punished by law because that is an untruth.
To your second sentence, again, yes...
-
Yes, indeed, I have an issue with people being punished by law because that is an untruth.
To your second sentence, again, yes...
So we're back to no punishment ever?
-
So how do you enforce the rule of law then.
Can you even have a society without the rule of law being enforced in some way?
No legalese please.
-
So we're back to no punishment ever?
There you go again, putting words in my mouth and attempting an argument by extension. Above I just told you I agree to punishment, it just has to be done honestly...I never ever said a thing about no punishment ever!
-
There you go again, putting words in my mouth and attempting an argument by extension. Above I just told you I agree to punishment, it just has to be done honestly...I never ever said a thing about no punishment ever!
My mistake. I am earnestly trying to derive meaning from your posts but you're not making that very easy.
I'm not understanding the circumstances under which punishing someone for wrongdoing is acceptable in your mind. If a country has a law against murder, and someone violates that law by committing murder then punishing them is unjust? Where does honesty come into play?
-
My mistake. I am earnestly trying to derive meaning from your posts but you're not making that very easy.
That's the problem with legalese and why people don't trust it.
-
So how do you enforce the rule of law then.
Can you even have a society without the rule of law being enforced in some way?
No legalese please.
All these existing juristic concepts are bogus nonsense. There is actually no existing rule of law, because, in fact, law is not determinative of human conduct.
We need to turn honest and admit that the entire legal thing is a lot of ontologically unintelligible nonsense; and, start afresh, by being honest ontologically. Our entire legalistic civilization needs to be totally re-thought-out...
-
All these existing juristic concepts are bogus nonsense. There is actually no existing rule of law, because, in fact, law is not determinative of human conduct.
We need to turn honest and admit that the entire legal thing is a lot of ontologically unintelligible nonsense; and, start afresh, by being honest ontologically. Our entire legalistic civilization needs to be totally re-thought-out...
So in a plain English nutshell you're basically saying our current set of laws is overly complicated and needs to be simplified?
-
My mistake. I am earnestly trying to derive meaning from your posts but you're not making that very easy.
I'm not understanding the circumstances under which punishing someone for wrongdoing is acceptable in your mind. If a country has a law against murder, and someone violates that law by committing murder then punishing them is unjust? Where does honesty come into play?
The claim that they are being punished by law is untrue and hence unjust. How many times do you need to be told something!?
We simply need to be ontologically honest, admitting that we are not in fact being determined by law to do or not do anything, and, rethink the whole shebang from there...
-
So in a plain English nutshell you're basically saying our current set of laws is overly complicated and needs to be simplified?
No, I am saying that our law-mediated approach to civilization is a totally dishonest approach to civilization; and, that we need to engage in this type of dialectical interchange, until we evolve an alternate approach to civilization,in keeping with, not against, our own human ontological structure!
-
All these existing juristic concepts are bogus nonsense. There is actually no existing rule of law, because, in fact, law is not determinative of human conduct.
We need to turn honest and admit that the entire legal thing is a lot of ontologically unintelligible nonsense; and, start afresh, by being honest ontologically. Our entire legalistic civilization needs to be totally re-thought-out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
-
There you go again, putting words in my mouth and attempting an argument by extension. Above I just told you I agree to punishment, it just has to be done honestly...I never ever said a thing about no punishment ever!
Look, you're posting in a forum where high humor is considered "pull my finger".
Help us out. Explain like you're explaining to ten year olds:
You are standing in a crowd. A person draws a gun and shoots the person next to them in the head for no reason. Everyone witnesses it. Within your frame of reference, what chain of events now happens?
-
Let's try this again. I think I know what you're trying to say once all the legalese is stripped away.
In a nutshell the rule of law and not just our current system of the rule of law but the whole concept of the rule of law as a system is a bad system and needs to replaced with some other system?
-
Look, you're posting in a forum where high humor is considered "pull my finger".
Help us out. Explain like you're explaining to ten year olds:
You are standing in a crowd. A person draws a gun and shoots the person next to them in the head for no reason. Everyone witnesses it. Within your frame of reference, what chain of events now happens?
Of course the shooter immediately runs off at high speed and gets away. Later he feels terrible and turns himself in to the sheriff.
-
Once again, this is a b o t.
Nuke it from o r b i t.
-
Of course the shooter immediately runs off at high speed and gets away. Later he feels terrible and turns himself in to the sheriff.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x383/WLJohnson1/confused-no.gif)
Let me know when human nature suddenly changes
-
Let's try this again. I think I know what you're trying to say once all the legalese is stripped away.
In a nutshell the rule of law and not just our current system of the rule of law but the whole concept of the rule of law as a system is a bad system and needs to replaced with some other system?
Yes. It is a system which is not honest and does not even know it is not honest. It dishonestly claims to be acting by law, when, in fact, law does not and cannot move persons to act, or not act.
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x383/WLJohnson1/confused-no.gif)
Let me know when human nature suddenly changes
We humans have no predetermined nature. We are all ongoing blank slates, total freedoms, continually making ourselves from moment to moment.
-
Yes. It is a system which is not honest and does not even know it is not honest. It dishonestly claims to be acting by law, when, in fact, law does not and cannot move persons to act, or not act.
And you believe that by not punishing people under the rule of law bad people will start being good because punishment under the rule law is what makes bad people do bad things?
-
And you believe that by not punishing people under the rule of law bad people will start being good because punishment under the rule law is what makes bad people do bad things?
No! I never said any such thing!
-
Of course the shooter immediately runs off at high speed and gets away. Later he feels terrible and turns himself in to the sheriff.
I rarely get a chance to use this twice in the same thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM
-
Wow Perd, you are a heavy dude indeed. Excellent pronouncements!
OK, I cribbed it from this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm
-
No! I never said any such thing!
Why there was a ? at the end.
But it's the general impression I'm getting. Why else after you remove the rule of law would the shooter turn himself in out of the goodness of his nature? Why wouldn't he just keep running?
-
OK, I cribbed it from this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm
Wow Perd, it just goes on and on, seemingly endlessly. Well written though isn't it...
-
Why there was a ? at the end.
But it's the general impression I'm getting. Why else after you remove the rule of law would the shooter turn himself in out of the goodness of his nature? Why wouldn't he just keep running?
You did not say rule of law is not included in the scenario!
-
Bosco,
What we are trying to figure out is how you prefer moral violations be handled given your insistence that punishing violation of law is unacceptable.
Presumably you have an alternative system devised. What is that system?
In Sartreistan, do you plan to only have self defense at the time of the crime? Is lynching acceptable? If one of your family are lynched should you lynch the people responsible? What exactly is the enforcement mechanism when someone harms someone else?
-
We humans have no predetermined nature. We are all ongoing blank slates, total freedoms, continually making ourselves from moment to moment.
That is observably and scientifically not true.
That is an unsupportable presupposition at the foundational level.
There is an incredible amount of genetic influence over how we turn out. Potentially or probably more than the nurture side of things.
-
Bosco,
What we are trying to figure out is how you prefer moral violations be handled given your insistence that punishing violation of law is unacceptable.
Presumably you have an alternative system devised. What is that system?
In Sartreistan, do you plan to only have self defense at the time of the crime? Is lynching acceptable? If one of your family are lynched should you lynch the people responsible? What exactly is the enforcement mechanism when someone harms someone else?
I have repeatedly said answers will arise out of a dialectic. I do not have prefabricated answers to all these endless questions!
-
That is observably and scientifically not true.
That is an unsupportable presupposition at the foundational level.
There is an incredible amount of genetic influence over how we turn out. Potentially or probably more than the nurture side of things.
You are speaking correctly biologically. I am referring to personality, i.e., there is no psychological predetermined behavioral nature of a human being; the psyche is a blank slate.
-
You are speaking correctly biologically. I am referring to personality, i.e., there is no psychological predetermined behavioral nature of a human being; the psyche is a blank slate.
Guess you never had children
-
The apostle Paul actually spoke on this in Romans chapter 4:
"13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."
...and chapter 5:
"13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."
-
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.972099058.6403/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg)
-
Guess you never had children
What are you saying about children?
-
I have repeatedly said answers will arise out of a dialectic. I do not have prefabricated answers to all these endless questions!
These should be simple questions to the man who surpassed even Sartre in determining that law is not determinative of conduct!
You are a philosophical arsonist, seeking to destroy that which is imperfect in favor of a perfect, Utopian future you have not even the slightest clue how to bring about.
-
What are you saying about children?
there is no psychological predetermined behavioral nature of a human being; the psyche is a blank slate.
Children display unique personalities at a very young age often within days, anyone who has raised children knows that. What you said flies in the face of that.
-
These should be simple questions to the man who surpassed even Sartre in determining that law is not determinative of conduct!
You are a philosophical arsonist, seeking to destroy that which is imperfect in favor of a perfect, Utopian future you have not even the slightest clue how to bring about.
You keep on and on about me intending a Utopia!? I have no such thought! I have mentioned no such thing! Your endless questions are your way of harassing me!
I have merely written a viable unpublished critique of law, in this miniscule microscopic portion of the world! Law is not going anywhere via my writing at this point! Calm down, everything is okay. I merely radically needed to do a meaningful theoretical destruction of law, because, all my life, pigs are constantly barging into my presence, forever attempting to make trouble. Nowadays, the stupid Nazi nitwits continually murder persons over nothing! This horrid police absolutism of law requires a radically intelligent kick in the nuts of law. I am radically seriously angry! This is a peaceful nonviolent way to ---- this police/law terror horror!
-
B O T . S T I L L A B O T.
-
Holy crap I go the range for a couple hours and three pages of prattle happen.
I feel I need to point out the windmill Bosco is tilting at.
Bosco. No one, not one person, thinks that a law being written down is deterministic of human action. Perhaps no one has said it to you because it's an obvious bedrock principle of our society.
Obviously a law's mere existence does not cause human action, that's WHY people are punished for breaking laws. Because the law existed, and the person chose to break it.
Your entire philosophical breakthrough, existential bibliography and all, is conveyed in the life experience of a 3 year old getting their first spanking.
Honestly it would be more interesting if you could find someone who thought a laws existence in a culture deterministicly caused humans to act. That would be a strange worldview to discuss.
-
90% of this thread was people just trying to figure out what he was getting at.
-
90% of this thread was people just trying to figure out what he was getting at.
And then finding out what he said had no relation to what he meant.
-
And then finding out what he said had no relation to what he meant.
Meaning can only be found in nothing or some such thing.
-
Holy crap I go the range for a couple hours and three pages of prattle happen.
I feel I need to point out the windmill Bosco is tilting at.
Bosco. No one, not one person, thinks that a law being written down is deterministic of human action. Perhaps no one has said it to you because it's an obvious bedrock principle of our society.
Obviously a law's mere existence does not cause human action, that's WHY people are punished for breaking laws. Because the law existed, and the person chose to break it.
Your entire philosophical breakthrough, existential bibliography and all, is conveyed in the life experience of a 3 year old getting their first spanking.
Honestly it would be more interesting if you could find someone who thought a laws existence in a culture deterministicly caused humans to act. That would be a strange worldview to discuss.
"Law" intends persons NOT to act in such and such a manner. It is implicit that law is deemed to be determinative of human inaction. Of course it is rarely said openly that law determines human conduct; I have been in court when a judge told me he was bound and determined by law. Yes, that law is in fact deemed to be determinative of human conduct is seldom ever spoken of; nonetheless, that is what legislators; judges and police think! That is what it boils down to, i.e., law as a determinative!
-
A d e c e n t b u t n o t a g o o d b o t.
It has a limited program and a limited attack pattern.
Either ignore it or nuke it.
-
"Law" intends persons NOT to act in such and such a manner. It is implicit that law is deemed to be determinative of human inaction. Of course it is rarely said openly that law determines human conduct; I have been in court when a judge told me he was bound and determined by law. Yes, that law is in fact deemed to be determinative of human conduct is seldom ever spoken of; nonetheless, that is what legislators; judges and police think! That is what it boils down to, i.e., law as a determinative!
The bolded statement is untrue. Such a premise is not implicit in the laws of human society.
Whatever the judge may have said to you (and I suspect you misinterpreted his statement) judges, prosecutors, and police in our system explicitly have discretion in their enforcement of the law. They can choose to enforce it, or not.
If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton what the legal punishment for mishandling classified documents is.
You have constructed and published a detailed, convoluted argument to disprove a thesis no serious person believes is true.
-
A d e c e n t b u t n o t a g o o d b o t.
It has a limited program and a limited attack pattern.
Either ignore it or nuke it.
We're having fun.
Besides, once we finish crushing his current erroneous philosophy we can introduce him to Heinlan. Can you imagine a .....writer with his vocabulary addressing the morality of Lazarus Long?
-
The bolded statement is untrue. Such a premise is not implicit in the laws of human society.
Whatever the judge may have said to you (and I suspect you misinterpreted his statement) judges, prosecutors, and police in our system explicitly have discretion in their enforcement of the law. They can choose to enforce it, or not.
If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton what the legal punishment for mishandling classified documents is.
You have constructed and published a detailed, convoluted argument to disprove a thesis no serious person believes is true.
You are radically ignorant dogmush!
-
But hey, I'm just dense and inept...
Not to mention indubitably stupid!
-
You are radically ignorant dogmush!
And you are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, pedantic, egotistic and generally annoying.
-
You are radically ignorant dogmush!
AD HOMINEM !!!
-
What I am against regarding law is that the persons who mediate and make law, legislators; judges; police, punish persons for not being determined to action or inaction by law, while all the while, law is not, cannot be, determinative/originative of human action, which is precisely what legislators; judges; and police believe, i.e., that language of law is determinative/originative of their actions and, of human actions. Thus we live in a world running on the basis that law is a determinative of human conduct, which is entirely mistaken!
No, you are mistaken. Neither legislators, judges, nor police believe that laws will absolutely determine human actions. The best they expect or hope for is that laws will influence human behavior. How can it do that? Because actions have consequences. And the consequences of acting contrary to law involve punishment. Thus, while law does not assure human behavior, law can direct human behavior toward the direction of doing that which will not result in punishment/penalty.
Is that "determinative"? To a degree, yes ... but it's not a guarantee.
-
AD HOMINEM !!!
Ipso facto?
Brad
-
You are radically ignorant dogmush!
Dogmush has his faults, but radical ignorance is not one of them. He is correctly pointing out one of the multitude of fundamental flaws in your claims.
There are some points we could all probably find common ground on. Like you, I oppose misuse of governmental authority and police abuses.
If you are physically capable of getting outside, I recommend spending some time enjoying your property. Smell some fresh air. Touch grass. Maybe cut down a tree. Build something you can be proud of. Plant a garden this spring, and tend to it. Spend some time in the sun when you can.
Wallowing in bitterness wrapped in unintelligible nonsense isn’t helping you.
-
No, you are mistaken. Neither legislators, judges, nor police believe that laws will absolutely determine human actions. The best they expect or hope for is that laws will influence human behavior. How can it do that? Because actions have consequences. And the consequences of acting contrary to law involve punishment. Thus, while law does not assure human behavior, law can direct human behavior toward the direction of doing that which will not result in punishment/penalty.
Is that "determinative"? To a degree, yes ... but it's not a guarantee.
Yes, they do not believe law absolutely determinative. Nonetheless, law is intended to be determinative, especially determinative of NOT doing X.
-
Yes, they do not believe law absolutely determinative. Nonetheless, law is intended to be determinative, especially determinative of NOT doing X.
No. If it was believed that law determined behavior then there would be no need for enforcement.
You are fractally wrong.
-
Dogmush has his faults, but radical ignorance is not one of them. He is correctly pointing out one of the multitude of fundamental flaws in your claims.
There are some points we could all probably find common ground on. Like you, I oppose misuse of governmental authority and police abuses.
If you are physically capable of getting outside, I recommend spending some time enjoying your property. Smell some fresh air. Touch grass. Maybe cut down a tree. Build something you can be proud of. Plant a garden this spring, and tend to it. Spend some time in the sun when you can.
Wallowing in bitterness wrapped in unintelligible nonsense isn’t helping you.
I am in my extremely beautiful extensive woods every other day, cutting firewood.
Oh, you think you can continually insult me repeatedly because you are some kind of site pig!?
I do not deal in unintelligible nonsense; you simply lack the IQ to comprehend the Sartre I present! I am not wallowing in bitterness! But, you do, right now, really piss me off...
-
No. If it was believed that law determined behavior then there would be no need for enforcement.
You are fractally wrong.
You freaks are disagreeing with every single solitary thing I write!
Law is written primarily to determine persons NOT to act on such and such a wise; tell me I am wrong about law being written to determine persons NOT to do things, and, I will be certain you are purposely continually screwing with me.
-
If finding out no one here buys into any of this Sartre business upsets you so much may I suggest finding another forum. I suggest either that or to agree to disagree on this matter and move on to some other topic.
-
You log on here, make pretentious pronouncement and get your knickers in a wad when someone dares to disagree with your enlightened decree.
You call us freaks and also proclaim that those that disagree with you are absurdly ignorant and then get all pissy about it if some one comes back at you in the same vein.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fUIe0X464Tg
-
You freaks are disagreeing with every single solitary thing I write!
No we aren’t! :P
Law is written primarily to determine persons NOT to act on such and such a wise; tell me I am wrong about law being written to determine persons NOT to do things, and, I will be certain you are purposely continually screwing with me.
Laws are certainly written to discourage certain behaviors. To influence them, and punish when lines are crossed.
That is a different thing entirely than saying law is, or is intended to be the origin of human behavior.
-
You are radically ignorant dogmush!
And here I thought he was just regular ignorant. Bosco, you've opened my eyes!
Hey, man, I think the judge was probably telling you that the law required him to do something in a particular case. Sounds to me like he was just doing his job, and trying to stay within the rules.
-
You log on here, make pretentious pronouncement and get your knickers in a wad when someone dares to disagree with your enlightened decree.
You call us freaks and also proclaim that those that disagree with you are absurdly ignorant and then get all pissy about it if some one comes back at you in the same vein.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fUIe0X464Tg
You weirdos are openly stating that you are out to destroy my "philosophy" and, redirect my extensive vocabulary onto some other course. You are simply freaks out to screw with new members, for fun. You are totally viscious and radically stupid-asses...
-
And here I thought he was just regular ignorant. Bosco, you've opened my eyes!
Hey, man, I think the judge was probably telling you that the law required him to do something in a particular case. Sounds to me like he was just doing his job, and trying to stay within the rules.
Yes he was Perd, and, he said that he was bound and determined by law to do such and such. I will never forget that, I was about 21. So, that is how I know judges feel determined by law!
-
Yes he was Perd, and, he said that he was bound and determined by law to do such and such. I will never forget that, I was about 21. So, that is how I know judges feel determined by law!
Around 1967-69 right? I'm guessing the years based on your ideas.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lSPbU9EZ0Q&t=30s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lSPbU9EZ0Q&t=30s)
-
You weirdos are openly stating that you are out to destroy my "philosophy" and, redirect my extensive vocabulary onto some other course. You are simply freaks out to screw with new members, for fun. You are totally viscious and radically stupid-asses...
We're not out to destroy your philosophy. We just disagree with it and don't accept it as a universal truth the way you do. We have expressed the reasons why we disagree and have been met with insults by you for that.
No one here gives a hammered rat turd what you believe and have no desire to change your belief. If you want to believe in Santa clause feel free. We also have many devout Christians, a fair number of atheists and maybe a wiccan or two and we all peacefully coexist with only the occasional (mostly) good natured jab at each other.
Demanding that we accept your philosophy as an enlightened truth because you said so is arrogant beyond the pale.
-
We're not out to destroy your philosophy. We just disagree with it and don't accept it as a universal truth the way you do. We have expressed the reasons why we disagree and have been met with insults by you for that.
No one here gives a hammered rat turd what you believe and have no desire to change your belief. If you want to believe in Santa clause feel free. We also have many devout Christians, a fair number of atheists and maybe a wiccan or two and we all peacefully coexist with only the occasional (mostly) good natured jab at each other.
Demanding that we accept your philosophy as an enlightened truth because you said so is arrogant beyond the pale.
Think maybe even a democrat or two :P
-
And we even listen to both kinds of music, country and western.
-
No we aren’t! :P
Laws are certainly written to discourage certain behaviors. To influence them, and punish when lines are crossed.
That is a different thing entirely than saying law is, or is intended to be the origin of human behavior.
Law is absolutely intended to originate certain behavior. At one time in America there was no federal income tax; then, a law was written requiring persons to pay the income tax, which paying said tax in accordance with the new law was a behavior intended by the legislators to be started/originated by the language of the new law!
Law is very clearly intended to be the origin of behavior!
If you and your buddies here were not intentionally deliberately screwing with me for fun, you would not be acting so stupid/dense regarding law as determinative of conduct, and, disagreeing with every single thing I say, on purpose!
-
Think maybe even a democrat or two :P
You take that back!!
:mad:
-
If you weren't interested in discussing your philosophical viewpoint, why did you post it?
This is a discussion forum. We discuss things. Obviously folks are going to try to find out what you mean (which isn't easy due to your syntax), ask questions about it, and challenge bits that are in contradiction with their worldview, experience and beliefs.
-
And having a sense of humor about differing ideas gets you a lot further than insults.
-
Law is absolutely intended to originate certain behavior. At one time in America there was no federal income tax; then, a law was written requiring persons to pay the income tax, which paying said tax in accordance with the new law was a behavior intended by the legislators to be started/originated by the language of the new law!
Law is very clearly intended to be the origin of behavior!
If you and your buddies here were not intentionally deliberately screwing with me for fun, you would not be acting so stupid/dense regarding law as determinative of conduct, and, disagreeing with every single thing I say, on purpose!
We disagree because we reject you assertions and pronouncements. Your demands that we accept your philosophy are laughable.
-
If you and your buddies here were not intentionally deliberately screwing with me for fun, you would not be acting so stupid/dense regarding law as determinative of conduct, and, disagreeing with every single thing I say, on purpose!
I agree completely. I can't speak for anyone else who has participated in this discussion, but I freely acknowledge that I disagree with you on purpose. I do so because I do not agree with you, and therefore it is my purpose in responding to you to express my disagreement. Did you not invite commentary on your thesis by posting it?
Would you be happier if we all said our disagreements with you were NOT on purpose, but were entirely accidental and coincidental?
If you joined this forum with any expectation that our members would simply read your treatise and accept your premise unquestioningly ... you came to the wrong Internet forum. As a rule, nobody here agrees with anybody. We like it that way ... it keeps life interesting.
-
Law is very clearly intended to be the origin of behavior!
Not in the way Sartre was talking about. Surely you of all people here understand that.
When a guest comes to my home I might ask them to remove their shoes and they might do so. My request was not the origin of their action by Sartre’s definition, though it certainly impacted their actions. Instead it was ultimately their choice, their mind, their animus, their internal decision making that determined whether they would comply with my request.
You keep sloppily conflating the internal expression of will and external influences on behavior. If this were a colloquial conversation I would agree that law is intended to impose certain actions and inactions on people. However, you have relied heavily - almost exclusively - on Sartre’s commentary on the subject, and when he speaks of origin of action he is referring to internal motivation, not merely influence. He is making a point that actions are not preordained and that a human has choice - thereby freedom - regardless of the situation.
Law is absolutely intended to influence behavior - and indeed is blunt and heavy-handed in so doing. Law is unable and generally not intended to impact human mental autonomy and intention, except to the extent that people respond to threats.
If you want to use the common vernacular and mash together the two concepts then you cannot use Sartre’s formalized definitions and extrapolate using his jargon.
-
You freaks are disagreeing with every single solitary thing I write!
Law is written primarily to determine persons NOT to act on such and such a wise; tell me I am wrong about law being written to determine persons NOT to do things, and, I will be certain you are purposely continually screwing with me.
Don't take it personally; everything you say is demonstrably wrong. So they are not attacking you, just attacking your nonsense. Most of it starts out okay, then goes way too far. Perhaps you don't understand causality, or determinism? HTH =)
-
Don't take it personally; everything you say is demonstrably wrong. So they are not attacking you, just attacking your nonsense. Most of it starts out okay, then goes way too far. Perhaps you don't understand causality, or determinism? HTH =)
So, if absolutely everything I say is demonstrably wrong, then, if you are so precise, demonstrate how and why something I said is wrong!
-
(His mother was a hamster and his father stank of elderberries!)
-
So, if absolutely everything I say is demonstrably wrong, then, if you are so precise, demonstrate how and why something I said is wrong!
You've had a bunch of things pointed out as wrong, and even had them explained to you at some length.
You regularly conflate Sartre's concept of internal freedom as the genesis of action which can be independent of circumstance with the fact that humans react to circumstance as a matter of course. This seems to be one of the more fundamental of your logical failures. You simply don't even remotely understand the source material you're basing your entire argument on.
You state without support or evidence that law and other codes of behavior are intended by their creators and enforcers to fill the role of human will as opposed to the reality that they are designed to provide a transactional punishment for misbehavior and ideally discourage people from making the choice to commit crime.
You put forward the discredited tabula rasa theory of human development.
You advocate overthrowing that which is when you admit you have no theory, no plan, no reason to assume what will take its place will be superior in any respect.
You claim that in 1776 there was no law (false) and that "everything proceeded calmly and with propriety" (also false).
etc.
You've been shown - carefully and with more than a little patience - specifically where you've made errors. You've tended to blunder past those critiques.
-
You've had a bunch of things pointed out as wrong, and even had them explained to you at some length.
You regularly conflate Sartre's concept of internal freedom as the genesis of action which can be independent of circumstance with the fact that humans react to circumstance as a matter of course.
The reactions to circumstance are not originated and performed causally by said given circumstances. One's ontological freedom is the only possible originative source of one's action.
I have realized that my intellectual instrumentation is twentieth century efficient, and, that yours, for instance, is merely sixteenth/seventeenth century efficient. You absolutely cannot possibly understand what human freedom actually is; it is in a real sense absolute in its priority to and independence from all given states of affairs; given circumstances are not action-able beings which can causally move humans to act, they are dead, inanimate, phenomenon. Human freedom is the only source of action. You have not had the time or the concentration even to comprehend your own freedom, i.e., you are not reflectively free.
-
The reactions to circumstance are not originated and performed causally by said given circumstances. One's ontological freedom is the only possible originative source of one's action.
I totally agree. Which is why law isn't trying to horn in on that as you continually claim. If law were expected originate action in and of itself then no enforcement mechanism would need to exist.
-
"Conceptual units?" Bates, I was beginning to realize, never pulled up a subtitle if she could help it.
James nodded. "Like processing a line of text word by word, instead of looking at complete phrases. The smaller the units, the faster they can be reconfigured; it gives you very fast semantic reflexes. The down side is that it's difficult to maintain the same level of logical consistency, since the patterns within the larger structure are more likely to get shuffled."
"Whoa." Szpindel straightened, all thoughts of liquids and centipetal force forgotten.
"All I'm saying is, we aren't necessarily dealing with deliberate deception here. An entity who parses information at one scale might not be aware of inconsistencies on another; it might not even have conscious access to that level."
https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm (https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm)
Sartre's concept of internal freedom as the genesis of action
I don't have time (enough free time in remaining probable lifetime) to read Sarte. And I'd rather read Augustine (https://www.amazon.com/City-God-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0679783199), anyway.
-
Going to be blunt here
I think part of your frustrated is perhaps deep down you've realized you have wasted decades of your life on nonsense that has been debunked time and time again and that virtually no one else believes. Your reactions to disagreement have been that of someone who doubts what he's preaching. Get your head out of the haze of 1960s and try to enjoy life while you sill have the time in your remaining years to do so. It's suppose to warm up today.
-
I have realized that my intellectual instrumentation is twentieth century efficient, and, that yours, for instance, is merely sixteenth/seventeenth century efficient. You absolutely cannot possibly understand what human freedom actually is; it is in a real sense absolute in its priority to and independence from all given states of affairs; given circumstances are not action-able beings which can causally move humans to act, they are dead, inanimate, phenomenon. Human freedom is the only source of action. You have not had the time or the concentration even to comprehend your own freedom, i.e., you are not reflectively free.
Time out, Duane.
You have criticized us for "attacking" you rather than your argument, yet as this discussion has progressed and your failure to win any converts has become more evident, you have more and more resorted to insulting us as a substitute for re-framing your argument in a way that might have a better chance of prevailing. I'm afraid my sixteenth/seventeenth intellect is not impressed by your towering twentieth century intellectual instrument. Perhaps you would find more fertile ground on a forum populated by twenty-first century intellects. Why are you wasting your valuable time casting pearls before us intellectual swine?
-
So, how much did all this "knowledge" cost you, and are you still paying for it?
Locally, there is someone picking up the tuition for kids going to welding school.
-
I have realized that my intellectual instrumentation is twentieth century efficient...
*looks at calendar and confirms year*
???
Brad
-
I totally agree. Which is why law isn't trying to horn in on that as you continually claim. If law were expected originate action in and of itself then no enforcement mechanism would need to exist.
The legislators. the judges; the nitwit police, all make it their business to horn in on my life via this bull called law. Where have you been?! Yes, all of these persons claim the law determines, causes, moves them, binds and determines them to continually screw with us. That is their claim, but, the reality is that they are not in fact moved by the law to act against the citizenry.
-
The legislators. the judges; the nitwit police, all make it their business to horn in on my life via this bull called law.
That may all be true, but that is a separate issue. That doesn't tie into all the other philosophical stuff you've raised whatsoever.
Where have you been?! Yes, all of these persons claim the law determines, causes, moves them, binds and determines them to continually screw with us. That is their claim, but, the reality is that they are not in fact moved by the law to act against the citizenry.
You're arguing against a strawman.
-
Going to be blunt here
I think part of your frustrated is perhaps deep down you've realized you have wasted decades of your life on nonsense that has been debunked time and time again and that virtually no one else believes. Your reactions to disagreement have been that of someone who doubts what he's preaching. Get your head out of the haze of 1960s and try to enjoy life while you sill have the time in your remaining years to do so. It's suppose to warm up today.
You are a damned nitwit! Get off my case, fool!
-
You are a damned nitwit! Get off my case, fool!
This looks like you are trying to get banned, as if that would somehow prove your point or your righteousness. (self-righteousness)
-
You are a damned nitwit! Get off my case, fool!
If I'm wrong why are you still here?
Just want to spend the remaining years of your life arguing with everyone on the internet?
Get outside, breath the fresh air instead of arguing, the sun is out
-
Gentlemen, let's get away from personal attacks and focus on debating the issue at hand. We can disagree strongly with each other and remain civil and polite. =)
As a reminder, the forum rules are here (https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=2.0).
-
Sorry, Nick, I may have gotten carried away as well.
Bosco1, I apologize if I've been rude to you. I consider your reasoning to be fallacious and your arguments unconvincing, but that is no excuse to be impolite.
-
Time out, Duane.
You have criticized us for "attacking" you rather than your argument, yet as this discussion has progressed and your failure to win any converts has become more evident, you have more and more resorted to insulting us as a substitute for re-framing your argument in a way that might have a better chance of prevailing. I'm afraid my sixteenth/seventeenth intellect is not impressed by your towering twentieth century intellectual instrument. Perhaps you would find more fertile ground on a forum populated by twenty-first century intellects. Why are you wasting your valuable time casting pearls before us intellectual swine?
I am not here endeavoring to win converts!? Most of what you guys have done is insult me! Bigtime. I am not going to rewrite my treatise in order to adapt to your lack of comprehension! I don't give a damn if you are impressed or not! It is not a total waste of time. I am learning enough to perhaps rewrite the way I put the first sentence of the script, maybe...
-
I am not here endeavoring to win converts!? Most of what you guys have done is insult me! Bigtime. I am not going to rewrite my treatise in order to adapt to your lack of comprehension! I don't give a damn if you are impressed or not! It is not a total waste of time. I am learning enough to perhaps rewrite the way I put the first sentence of the script, maybe...
Why won't you rewrite it for us? You rewrote it for these guys:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56159.html
-
If I'm wrong why are you still here?
Just want to spend the remaining years of your life arguing with everyone on the internet?
Get outside, breath the fresh air instead of arguing, the sun is out
I am still here because I am flooded with responses, this thread is booming; and, I am making headway with cordex!
No, I do not want to argue on the internet, I want a dialectic.
-
Why won't you rewrite it for us? You rewrote it for these guys:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56159.html
Excellent move Ben. I indeed did think of posting one of my other writings here too, to show that I have in fact now written this in plainer language, and, then, decided no. Thank you Ben!
-
Excellent move Ben. I indeed did think of posting one of my other writings here too, to show that I have in fact now written this in plainer language, and, then, decided no. Thank you Ben!
No problem. Other than you've already called us fools and told us it's impossible for you to write it in simpler terms than in your OP. But if you can dumb it down for us simpletons, I'll certainly give it a read.
-
No problem. Other than you've already called us fools and told us it's impossible for you to write it in simpler terms than in your OP. But if you can dumb it down for us simpletons, I'll certainly give it a read.
Especially for us nitwits :P
-
The legislators. the judges; the nitwit police, all make it their business to horn in on my life via this bull called law. Where have you been?! Yes, all of these persons claim the law determines, causes, moves them, binds and determines them to continually screw with us. That is their claim, but, the reality is that they are not in fact moved by the law to act against the citizenry.
There's always
(https://politicalbullpen.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/original/2X/2/294fb31cebd890ab9c3ea1cb80a26b22eb1b417b.jpeg)
-
No problem. Other than you've already called us fools and told us it's impossible for you to write it in simpler terms than in your OP. But if you can dumb it down for us simpletons, I'll certainly give it a read.
Really appreciate you posting my 2018 writing. It is totally beautiful... Let it be enough to indicate what I am about...
-
As a rule, nobody here agrees with anybody. We like it that way ... it keeps life interesting.
W R O N G
R
O
N
G
=D
-
So, if absolutely everything I say is demonstrably wrong, then, if you are so precise, demonstrate how and why something I said is wrong!
The blank slate, tabula rasa, has turned out to not really be true. There are aspects of our behaviors, tendencies and abilities that are hardwired. Some parts of our psychological makeup are more malleable than others, and not everyone has the same starting psychological makeup.
The wiki article on tabula rasa is good enough to show its weaknesses as a theory. It has footnotes and links.
A philosophy or ideology that includes the unproven presuppositional belief that humans start as blank slates is building on a very shaky foundation, in my humble opinion.
-
The blank slate, tabula rasa, has turned out to not really be true. There are aspects of our behaviors, tendencies and abilities that are hardwired. Some parts of our psychological makeup are more malleable than others, and not everyone has the same starting psychological makeup.
The wiki article on tabula rasa is good enough to show its weaknesses as a theory. It has footnotes and links.
A philosophy or ideology that includes the unproven presuppositional belief that humans start as blank slates is building on a very shaky foundation, in my humble opinion.
I did not at all build my OP on the notion of blank slate. That just came up as an aside during member interaction.
-
WTF did I stumble into now? :facepalm: :old:
-
WTF did I stumble into now? :facepalm: :old:
Wipe your feet and take a shower after you leave.
-
WTF did I stumble into now? :facepalm: :old:
You stumbled into a mish mash of posts where one apparently very verbose individual (Bosco1) has decided he must be the one to point out some philosophical discoveries he made in the writings of the dubiously qualified philospher J. P. Sartre (which see) on laws and human behavior.
His escalating frustration with our inability to understand or accept his rather convoluted language and laud him as some kind of philosphical Pulitzer Prize Winner has made him decay into insulting remarks about our intelligence and inability to understand his rather prolix pronouncements.
All credit to cordex for attempting to clarify his, Bosco1's, unending muddy "thinking" and terrible "writing" to extract any value in what he, Bosco1, is attempting to convey.
It is time for cordex to accept honorable defeat in the fact that there is very little in Bosco1's output to justify umpteen pages of discourse (which has had some entertaining aspects) and he should close the thread with thanks to Bosco1 for the opportunity to review his insights.
That's a big nutshell, but there it is.
Terry, 230RN
-
Right, well, back to my pain killers and anime then!
-
Right, well, back to my pain killers and anime then!
Good move. And so should we all return to our prior activities, Amen.
-
You stumbled into a mish mash of posts where one apparently very verbose individual (Bosco1) has decided he must be the one to point out some philosophical discoveries he made in the writings of the dubiously qualified philospher J. P. Sartre (which see) on laws and human behavior.
His escalating frustration with our inability to understand or accept his rather convoluted language and laud him as some kind of philosphical Pulitzer Prize Winner has made him decay into insulting remarks about our intelligence and inability to understand his rather prolix pronouncements.
All credit to cordex for attempting to clarify his, Bosco1's, unending muddy "thinking" and terrible "writing" to extract any value in what he, Bosco1, is attempting to convey.
It is time for cordex to accept honorable defeat in the fact that there is very little in Bosco1's output to justify umpteen pages of discourse (which has had some entertaining aspects) and he should close the thread with thanks to Bosco1 for the opportunity to review his insights.
That's a big nutshell, but there it is.
Terry, 230RN
A multiplicity of freaks here have extensively radically insulted me and, in fact, conducted themselves in a totally ignorant fashion, by claiming that Sartre's writing is inacceptable because he once communicated with some communistic persons in Cuba. So, don't make it sound as if I am characterizing these several members as stuck on illogical/stupid just out of the blue for no valid reason!
-
A multiplicity of freaks here...
Have I been insulted? I think I may have been insulted! I don't recall urinating in the poster's toasted oat breakfast cereal...
-
Have I been insulted? I think I may have been insulted! I don't recall urinating in the poster's toasted oat breakfast cereal...
No Sir you have not been insulted unless you are among those here who rail against persons and not the person's position.
-
A summary of the 14 pages:
Bosco1: The law does not determine or cause humans to act. Each human makes a choice to act or not internally. Some people think the law does cause action, but they are wrong.
APS: No *expletive deleted*it the law doesn't cause action, humans have free will. Also no one really thinks it does, despite idioms that may have been used in your trials.
Bosco1: you are radically ignorant.
And now you're up to date HeroHog.
-
A multiplicity of freaks here have extensively radically insulted me and, in fact, conducted themselves in a totally ignorant fashion, by claiming that Sartre's writing is inacceptable because he once communicated with some communistic persons in Cuba. So, don't make it sound as if I am characterizing these several members as stuck on illogical/stupid just out of the blue for no valid reason!
Your variable IQ seems to be stuck in low gear.
Also, note that even though you have broken the laws of this forum, you have not yet been punished.
Also, Ad Hominem.
Also, https://youtu.be/VSKn8RlD7Is
-
A summary of the 14 pages:
Bosco1: The law does not determine or cause humans to act. Each human makes a choice to act or not internally. Some people think the law does cause action, but they are wrong.
APS: No *expletive deleted*it the law doesn't cause action, humans have free will. Also no one really thinks it does, despite idioms that may have been used in your trials.
Bosco1: you are radically ignorant.
And now you're up to date HeroHog.
That is an unfair characterization of what has happened here. Certain persons have acted ignorantly and very insultingly!
-
That is an unfair characterization of what has happened here. Certain persons have acted ignorantly and very insultingly!
Yes, but for the most part we haven't called you out on it.
-
If you call someone ignorant for having a different opinion expect some push back in return, it's human nature. You know, that thing you claim doesn't exist.
-
A multiplicity of freaks here have extensively radically insulted me and, in fact, conducted themselves in a totally ignorant fashion, by claiming that Sartre's writing is inacceptable because he once communicated with some communistic persons in Cuba. So, don't make it sound as if I am characterizing these several members as stuck on illogical/stupid just out of the blue for no valid reason!
https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034 (https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034)
-
That is an unfair characterization of what has happened here. Certain persons have acted ignorantly and very insultingly!
This forum been around for a good while. Suggest you peruse whatever else is going on here in.
-
This forum been around for a good while. Suggest you peruse whatever else is going on here in.
Perish the thought. This nonsense shows a good reason why political discussions (if that's what this is) are not permitted on some boards. I realize this thread has increased the hit count or rate, but one of the downsides is that prospective new members may consider APS as a bunch of idiots on account of this thread --entertaining as it may be to some participants.
Not good publicity for APS, IMO.
However, I figure if the mods and admins allow it to go on, I might as well join in the fun.
Bosco1:
A multiplicity of freaks here have extensively radically insulted me and, in fact, conducted themselves in a totally ignorant fashion, by claiming that Sartre's writing is inacceptable because he once communicated with some communistic persons in Cuba.
I don't see a cause-effect relationship there, please explain why one (if it occured) could cause the other.
I missed wherever that supposed relationship was brought up. Where did this allegation occur?
Terry, 230RN
-
Perish the thought. This nonsense shows a good reason why political discussions (if that's what this is) are not permitted on some boards. I realize this thread has increased the hit count or rate, but one of the downsides is that prospective new members may consider APS as a bunch of idiots on account of this thread --entertaining as it may be to some participants.
Not good publicity for APS, IMO.
However, I figure if the mods and admins allow it to go on, I might as well join in the fun.
Bosco1:
I don't see a cause-effect relationship there, please explain why one (if it occured) could cause the other.
I missed wherever that supposed relationship was brought up. Where did this allegation occur?
Terry, 230RN
The one caused the other via the hateful bigoted mentalities of the members holding that fallacious position.
-
The one caused the other via the hateful bigoted mentalities of the members holding that fallacious position.
IN YOUR OPINION
-
The one caused the other via the hateful bigoted mentalities of the members holding that fallacious position.
You just called most if not every member of this forum a hateful bigot.
-
The one caused the other via the hateful bigoted mentalities of the members holding that fallacious position.
None are determinative of behavior though.
-
https://youtu.be/xpAvcGcEc0k
-
The one caused the other via the hateful bigoted mentalities of the members holding that fallacious position.
Hey now. Stand down.
-
None are determinative of behavior though.
Causation is a notion we men ascribe to a state of affairs after the fact, when, in fact, no human act is causally produced from any ensemble of facts in the world, from the world outside of human consciousness.
-
Hey now. Stand down.
Oh, I see now, that picture appearing on your page is of Tuko from The Good the Bad and the Ugly! I thought is was of you!
-
Causation is a notion we men ascribe to a state of affairs after the fact, when, in fact, no human act is causally produced from any ensemble of facts in the world, from the world outside of human consciousness.
My dog ate a pile of Scrabble tiles the other day, his poop makes more sense than that statement.
=D
-
My dog ate a pile of Scrabble tiles the other day, his poop makes more sense than that statement.
=D
And smelled better.
-
My dog ate a pile of Scrabble tiles the other day, his poop makes more sense than that statement.
=D
It means that nothing anyone says causes his reactions and that he alone is responsible for every word he writes and action he takes.
-
My dog ate a pile of Scrabble tiles the other day, his poop makes more sense than that statement.
=D
See, now, that statement is horridly hateful and radically rude/stupid. I am coming from a Sartreian perspective on the origin of human action, and, you have no knowledge whatsoever of the structure of that perspective...nonetheless, you insist on being mean and stupid about it!
-
It means that nothing anyone says causes his reactions and that he alone is responsible for every word he writes and action he takes.
What someone else said is not causally efficient to do or produce anything, my consciousness of the insult produced my responce/reaction. I thought I was slowly getting that through your thick head, but apparently not...
-
Effect without cause
Cause without effect.
-
Effect without cause
Cause without effect.
Human freedom, known as being-for-itself, is not causally determined to act or refrain from acting by anything outside in the world. The things in the world are being-in-itself, and are not for-itselfs/consciousnesses, and do not, cannot, act in the world.
-
https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=67924.msg1387291#msg1387291
^ Like.
I wonder what fuels his fire to generate all that hot air?
-
It means that nothing anyone says causes his reactions and that he alone is responsible for every word he writes and action he takes
In other words he says he's ignoring what you say
But then reacts to it while claiming he's not :O
-
What someone else said is not causally efficient to do or produce anything, my consciousness of the insult produced my responce/reaction. I thought I was slowly getting that through your thick head, but apparently not...
I don’t think you’ve said anything that has gotten through my thick head.
-
https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=67924.msg1387291#msg1387291
^ Like.
I wonder what fuels his fire to generate all that hot air?
I am simply radically higher educated than you are, and, you are so totally uneducated rergarding modern notions of the origin of human behavior, that your brain simply does what it is, i.e,, exhibits total lack of twentieth century efficient cognizance of how a human act actually arises in the world. Chump.
-
I am simply radically higher educated than you are, and, you are so totally uneducated rergarding modern notions of the origin of human behavior, that your brain simply does what it is, i.e,, exhibits total lack of twentieth century efficient cognizance of how a human act actually arises in the world. Chump.
This is comedy gold!
Not often we see a master troll at work
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
BTW: It's now the 21st Century Chump :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Bosco1 said,
What someone else said is not causally efficient to do or produce anything, my consciousness of the insult produced my responce/reaction.
But passion or serendipity is interdependant on the relatedness of motivation, subcultures, and management.
Can't you see that?
Terry, 230RN
-
I don’t think you’ve said anything that has gotten through my thick head.
Ah-ha, you are not being objective here, but, simply entertain some irrational blind prejudice against the structure of my personal person!
-
BTW: It's now the 21st Century Chump :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yes, I know, but my education was in the twentieth century...
-
Ah-ha, you are not being objective here, but, simply entertain some irrational blind prejudice against the structure of my personal person!
No, I’m just too thick headed and stuck in the 16th century.
-
Okay, enough with this trolling act. Who are you really? :rofl:
-
My mentality, uncontrollable and wanton as always, whispered to me a scheme so magnificent and daring that I shrank from the very thought of what I was hearing. "Stop!" I cried imploringly to my god-like mind. "This is madness." But still I listened to the counsel of my brain. It was offering me the opportunity to Save the World
-
In other words he says he's ignoring what you say
But then reacts to it while claiming he's not :O
How can I possibly be ignoring what was said, and, at the same time respond thereto !? Silly.
-
Okay, enough with this trolling act. Who are you really? :rofl:
Oh oh,, here we go with the accusatory bullcrap! Trolling!? But of course ---- you
-
Come on drop the act
-
Absolutely excellent prose Ben!
-
Come on drop the act
What in the hell are you talking about!? I am being wholly genuine here. Fool!
-
What in the hell are you talking about!? I am being wholly genuine here. Fool!
Sure okay, whatever you say
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I am simply radically higher educated than you are, and, you are so totally uneducated rergarding modern notions of the origin of human behavior, that your brain simply does what it is, i.e,, exhibits total lack of twentieth century efficient cognizance of how a human act actually arises in the world. Chump.
Oh, chill. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGdjKvivJA8)
Warning - while you were typing 6 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
-
What in the hell are you talking about!? I are being wholly genuine here. Fool!
Genuine what?
<chatter>Are you a bot? What's it like, being a bot? </chatter>
The night is far spent, the Day is at hand.
-
You never answered my question, see Reply #366.
-
You never answered my question, see Reply #366.
So sorry. I did not respond because I could not make head or tail of what you wrote there! OK?
-
Genuine what?
<chatter>Are you a bot? What's it like, being a bot? </chatter>
The night is far spent, the Day is at hand.
What on earth is all this constant nitwitism about me being a bot!? I am a human being!
-
So sorry. I did not respond because I could not make head or tail of what you wrote there! OK?
But you said you were radically higher educated.
-
But you said you were radically higher educated.
An educated sapiental did not write that mish-mash! It appears to this educated sapiental to be unintelligible. Simply quit continually messing with me WLJ!
-
BTW: It's now the 21st Century Chump :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
In his defense, do you really expect anyone to brag about having a 21st century intellect?
-
An educated sapiental did not write that mish-mash! It appears to this educated sapiental to be unintelligible. Simply quit continually messing with me WLJ!
Maybe if you apologize for calling the members of this forum, who I consider my friends, hateful bigots.
Quote from: Bosco1 on Today at 02:15:06 PM
The one caused the other via the hateful bigoted mentalities of the members holding that fallacious position.
You just called most if not every member of this forum a hateful bigot.
and for all the other things you've called members here.
-
Bosco, I'm curious about the word "radically." Why do you use it so often, and what do you mean by it?
-
Bosco, I'm curious about the word "radically." Why do you use it so often, and what do you mean by it?
I mean far-out; over-the-top.
-
Maybe if you apologize for calling the members of this forum, who I consider my friends, hateful bigots.
Quote from: Bosco1 on Today at 02:15:06 PM
and for all the other things you've called members here.
NO.
-
NO.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2c57ew.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/2c57ew.jpg)
Get off my case.
-
So tell me, do you actually think you're smarter than and look down on everyone else here, and are above criticism?
-
Get off my case.
learn some manners
-
I mean far-out; over-the-top.
Oh. I guess it threw me off because I tend to take that word more literally, as in "from the root."
-
What on earth is all this constant nitwitism about me being a bot!? I am a human being!
An open question. You didn't pick up on some of the quotes I dropped into this thread.
"See that no one takes you captive..."
-
Oh. I guess it threw me off because I tend to take that word more literally, as in "from the root."
Oh, wow, I did not know it meant from the root. You are a true scholar Perd.
-
An open question. You didn't pick up on some of the quotes I dropped into this thread.
"See that no one takes you captive..."
No, I did not and do not figure out why you said that off-the-wall thing!
-
Bosco, a helpful link. This advice has always worked well for me
https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8
-
With continuing insults and personal attacks, I think this thread has run its course.