Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:40:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1417 times
|
| |
|
|
This message is huge again!
I wish I had as much free time at work as you, David. I still have an
unfinished reply to one of your previous posts in a draft folder. Hopefully
I can finish this one in one sitting...
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > David, I think you are using definition #1, while we are using • definition
> > #2...
> > 1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct
> > for the right word>
> > 2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to • make
> > a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli
> > without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below
> > the conscious level
> >
> > The dictionary itself shows us that there are different "levels" as you
> > said. My point is that animals aren't able to reason. They act according
> > to instinct (#2 above), not reason. Definition 2b covers even more -
> > showing that animals might be trained (through repetitive use of cause and
> > effect) but they can't reason, they can't comprehend that which we (most • of
> > us? some of us?) can.
>
> Ok, well, I'm not really concerned with what the dictionary says. Ask the
> dictionary what morality is, and I bet it won't define it as well as we've
> tried to here. If you want quick terminology, go to the dictionary; if you
> really want the REAL definition, you've got to think about it, because
> traditional language just won't do in some places. I think of instinct in • the
> manner I said earlier... a behavior which results without thought. My point • was
> that there isn't really a line to divide between reasoned action and • instinct--
> there are different levels of thought you can put into an action. I think • the
> distinction between conditioned response and reflex is certainly there, but • I
> think I'm leaning towards both of these categories being defined under
> instinct. Anyway, to answer you, I think I'm using a more general term, I • think
> your definitions are the specifics... at this point I'm not too concerned • with
> the specifics...
Lets look at the dictionary anyway. If I had said I was using definition
1, I could easily have said that animals don't reason, and all their actions
are instinctive (their actions just come about naturally, which basically is
true, and hard to argue). But, I didn't use that shortcut, because I really
don't think animals reason like people do. Covered that pretty well, too.
So, I used definition 2, because its more about what instinct means. You
knew what I meant though. Even if animals can reason to some extent (and I
don't grant that to be fact by any means), they aren't anywhere near humans,
so my original argument, saying we aren't (or shouldn't be) animals still
stands. If a person only lives off of his instincts, which by your
definition means the impulses and reflexes and a tiny bit of reason, then he
still isn't fully human, and IMO a waste of space. But I digress.
<monkey trick snipped>
Monkeys are what man came from right? Maybe they are just men who act
like animals (because they are stupid and don't use their brains to make
life easier and better). If monkeys evolved into people over 10,000 years
ago, I am sure there quite a variety of monkeys around in different stages
of evolution. I guess those scientists found one only a few thousand years
away from being human (or something else?!). I think people are in a
variety of stages of evolution, too, which is why some are smart, some are
dumb, some are passive and some can't stay out of fights (or the army... or
jail).(1)
> Interesting point. "Choosing to think." Wouldn't the act of choosing be a
> thought in and of itself?
No. Its not a conscious thought - people don't decide they will stop
thinking - but people do decide to continue thinking, to expand their
knowledge and abilities. No reasoning goes into the former, as a decision
was not made.
> Let's go back to the earliest homo-sapiens.
We just did - the monkey.
The
> genetics hasn't changed too much, but I think it'd be fair to still call • them
> animals by your definition. They *could* think, but didn't.. probably • because
> there wasn't a society around them encouraging them to, but still, for • whatever
> reason, they didn't think at the level we do. Did they *choose* not to
think?
What is the encouragement now? What is the stimuli? Money. People can
think but don't (not all, but many). The whole point of my morals is to
reward those who do. Taking money (wealth transfer) from those who think
and produce to give to those who don't is not very encouraging. Using a
better sytem, those who think and produce will be rewarded more while those
who don't think (whether lazy or stupid) won't receive as much reward. Its
fair. Bill Gates (yes, I like him) has probably paid for all the roads that
grunge idiots will use for the next 20 years, but he flies, doesn't use
roads, right? Whats fair about that? Whats encouraging about that?
<snipped questions about stupid people and retarded people>
My grandmother used to say, "You can't fix stupid." Some people are just
stupid. They'd probably be just as happy in a cave as a house if it meant
they didn't have to think or work. Actually, I don't agree with that 100% -
I think a lot of the people you are thinking of as stupid have just given
up - don't see much use in it all. They may not have been born brilliant,
but our system I am sure did not give them much encouragement. If our
system actually encouraged people to think and believe in themselves, I
doubt there would be nearly so many people that would be labeled stupid. Of
course, I know Mensa people who aren't interested in becoming billionaires,
but if they have the ability to change the world so much (for the better,
hopefully) they should be highly rewarded, whereas a street cleaner does
very little for the world, and if thats all he can do, thats unfortunate,
but I am sure he'd get by.
About retarded people. In our system they have it pretty bad. I think a
system that rewards people for thinking would have a place for retarded
people. There is a lot of prejudice towards retarded people in our world.
In a society that encourages thought, there is less prejudice (because
prejudice comes from ignorance and the fear it causes). These people would
be more accepted. There would also be more people thinking about ways to
improve their lives. Overall, I would not say retarded people are dumb, or
choose not to think. Most I have met try their best, and find a smile or a
pat on the back to be a sufficient reward. I would definitely not say they
are inhuman because they aren't capable of doing things the most human of us
can. Most humans can't do what Michael Jordan did - or Albert Einstein.
However, I would be more compelled to call those who drink a six pack of
beer every night a perform mindless jobs everyday inhuman.
> > Thats interesting. It could be what the writer meant. Its a good play • on
> > words, and I have one, too. Somebody wrote, "I think therefore I am."
> > Someone else wrote, "To be or not to be..." On the latter, I see "to • think
> > or not to think."
> > Earlier in this post, I said choosing not to use the mind is immoral,
> > because that is the tool we have for survival. What is moral to animals • is
> > to do whatever they can to promote their lives. For a person to live
> > morally, he should use the tools he has to promote his life. Primarily • his
> > mind. This is where life affirming comes in. Using your mind in a life
> > affirming way is moral, not using it in a life affirming way is immoral, • but
> > we've been there.
>
> Maybe this is something we've been missing: are you saying that • life-affirming
> is the sole factor in morality? There are inherent problems if it is... go • back
> to the 'theft without consequence' example... completely irrelevant with
> respect to life, but goes against the concept of rights... Is there some • other
> factor in morality other than life-affirming (like a concept of rights) • that
> can account for this? Or does life-affirming encompass things like rights? • If
> so, how would you re-define life-affirming? Anyway, again, expound.
We already covered this, too (I remember what I said more than what you
said, and can see how, through all these long posts, you could forget). But
I will go voer it again, maybe easier to understand this time, maybe not.
My morals are based on the idea that man is a greater entity than animals
because of his ability to reason. Rather than living like wild animals and
doing every instinctive act we want, we have decided we must use the
reasoning side of our mind to find a way for all of us to co-exist (exist,
not subsist). We, like animals, have instincts so we, as individuals, can
suvive. We must negate our instincts and use the only tool of survival
remaining, our ability to reason, to survive. Morals are the fruit of our
reasoning in this pursuit. We devise moral codes for this purpose (some are
better than others, and I believe there is an ideal one out there somewhere;
I don't believe morals are relative) - so we can all survive. The morals I
have so far (and try to live by) recognize that all men must be treated
equally and have the same rights. These rights consist of the right to own
things and the right not to be "hurt" by other people (which can mean the
man himself or anything that he owns). I think the term life affirming
supports this, but doesn't encompass all of it. When you recognize and care
about the rights of others, life affirming is pretty simple - you can ask
yourself...
Will this action be good for me?
Will this action not hurt anyone else?
The answer has to be yes to both to be life affirming (and moral - thus life
affirming morals)).
Also, when an action hurts another, it also hurts the person who did it, by
potential consequences or knowledge of his act (guilt), so, like I tried to
say before, there is only one question that need be asked to know if an act
will be life affirming...
Will this action be good for me?
Of course, that person has to take these things seriously, and not try,
like you do, to justify or weigh every act, or else he is cheating
(everyone, including himself).
> laterz,
> Dave
(1) - this people in different stages of evolution gives us a lot to work
with. You say that morals are relative and that one man's moral is better
for him than another. So, when a guy is 10,000 years less evolved than you,
it is OK for him to poke your eyes out and eat them because he was hungry,
right? Morals aren't relative, the better the morals, the better the
society, and right now, nobody even pays attention to morals because those
morals that have been taught (forced) for so long are so obviously backwards
that people don't want to hear the word moral.
--
Have fun!
John
Auctions and Trading and More at my Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
