User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 155

  1. #121
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synarch View Post
    Maybe we imbued the natural world with consciousness because we were once a part of it in a way that seems foreign now. Maybe our present dualities and distinctions (distinctions about who has personhood, etc.) are the symptoms of our own fragmentary self.
    We project consciousness onto nature, mostly because it has appeal to us at a certain level that we can feel "one" with it; kind of like a return to the womb of sorts on a psychological level, we see nature as a sort of "lost paradise" which we find appeal in returning to if only we actually could.

    On the other hand, I dont see why saying certain animals have individual consciouness contradicts the idea we are not "one" with nature. Not anymore than saying other humans have that consciousness.

  2. #122
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    It is also fia's position, so when you blustered into the thread with:
    ....you weren't. You just didn't understand what they had already covered.

    reading the post you quoted, you might have found out that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    if you 3 ( @fia @Mole @Beorn) don't mind me butting in: i'm disagreeing with everyone.
    would have suggested to you that i am
    1. butting in to the discussion between fia beorn and mole
    2. disagreeing with what everyone has said within that discussion

    going on reading, you would find out that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    yes, there is a continuum and there are degrees, but it's not intrinsic to them or to the universe or anything in between, rather: it is intrinsic to us - to our point of view as humans - we are able to experience different degrees of empathy towards different traits & animals.
    disagrees with fia here:
    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    ... I do think there is some kind of issue of "degree of existence" that speaks to intrinsic value, although I do appreciate the Janism view of respect for all life including insects. There might be a better way to phrase it, but it has to do with comprehension of existence, desire to maintain existence, or something along those lines that I find sacred and that I think there can be degree of, but also have a kind of intrinsic, infinite value. Perhaps there are different sizes of infinity, but I will have to think more to see if I can phrase it better. It's not about skill, but about degree of presence in reality.
    in that she who was seeking variables within the animal species themselves to define the continuity of intrinsic value, while i was stating that the value results from our point of view.

    you would find out that this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    for fuck sake, we don't need the universe to put crowns on our heads and tell us we're special, what does it matter what value we have to some higher entity wanking over us?
    disagrees with beorn here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Humans are made in God's image and specially endowed with inalienable rights.
    in that i don't find what ideas any other entity might have had for us to be particularly meaningful.

    and that this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    by learning more about other species, we have now become exposed to larger source of experiences to mirrors, and are affected by empathy towards the state and conditions of their existence. they hold an empathic value to us - just like humans do to each other.
    disagrees with mole here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    they give the impression of being our friends so we can project onto them our inter-subjectivity and treat them as members of our family, our human family.
    in that i find their experiences to show signs of genuine elements shared with our own rather than a mass projection...

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I'm not sure what you thought you were replying to, when you addressed yourself to me, unless you failed to understand that my post immediately preceding yours was ironic...which seems...unlikely.
    in order for you to make a sarcastic comment to dismiss the notion that i was suggesting a hierarchy based on animal's capacity for empathy it seemed that you were misinterpreting it as such, so i clarified (seemed to have worked). the other alternative i had in mind was that you meant it as a little elbow-hitting in the direction of beorn and his interpretation of fia's ("judging self awareness = judging ability") by repeating his misinterpretation pattern and applying it to what i said, which brought to mind that what i said can actually be misinterpreted that way and probably deserves a clarification anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    This part is where you fucked up the meaning of "intrinsic":
    perhaps: i was going by intrinsic = axiomatic/self-evident

  3. #123
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I also posted this:
    Which started a whole diversion into what "intrinsic" actually means. Your argument seems to be that intrinsic rights are not intrinsic. Which is a dumb argument. A more sensible one would be to say that intrinsic rights do not exist.

    This part is where you fucked up the meaning of "intrinsic":

    Which is what confused fia, who doubted herself instead of doubting that you know wth you're talking about.
    Needless to say, I don't have that problem.
    Which caused me to try to decide whether I was going to utilize the Inigo Montoya meme and try to explain this myself or just give up on the thread. I chose the latter. I think I chose wisely.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #124
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Ah. OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    perhaps: i was going by intrinsic = axiomatic/self-evident
    ^This was your first mistake.

    in·trin·sic
    /inˈtrinzik/
    Adjective
    Belonging naturally; essential.
    (of a muscle) Contained wholly within the organ on which it acts.
    Synonyms
    internal - inner - interior - inward - real

    in order for you to make a sarcastic comment to dismiss the notion that i was suggesting a hierarchy based on animal's capacity for empathy it seemed that you were misinterpreting it as such,
    ^This was your second.

    I wasn't responding to you at all. Dismissively or otherwise...

    Misunderstandings. Ain't they grand?

    I still fail to see a false dichotomy, though in fairness, I did just skim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #125
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Ah. OK.

    ^This was your first mistake.

    in·trin·sic
    /inˈtrinzik/
    Adjective
    Belonging naturally; essential.
    (of a muscle) Contained wholly within the organ on which it acts.
    Synonyms
    internal - inner - interior - inward - real
    ... so its stopped being a trait intrinsic to the animal the moment it became a trait of our perception of the animal rather than contained with it... yea i can see how that messed up the first sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I still fail to see a false dichotomy, though in fairness, I did just skim.
    ...once you treat it as "is the value of other species self evident", it maintained being self-evident that the value we apply to them depends would depend on us, so in thinking you were dismissing that as a subjective statement seemingly because it contained the point of view of subjective entity within it (humans), i explained that it's false to demand that objective statements can't include subjective entities within them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Misunderstandings. Ain't they grand?
    it's being nice Ti'ing with you.

  6. #126
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Dammit, you can't claim Ti and refuse to proofread! It's against the RULES!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    ...once you treat it as "is the value of other species self evident", it maintained being self-evident that the value we apply to them depends would depend on us, so in thinking you were dismissing that as a subjective statement seemingly because it contained the point of view of subjective entity within it (humans), i explained that it's false to demand that objective statements can't include subjective entities within them.
    Let's start again.

    Rights are EITHER intrinsic, i.e they entail to a being, they are a feature of said being's existence, they have validity independent of an external arbiter,
    OR
    They are conferred by some "higher power", and it is the authority of this higher power that gives them validity.

    Both things cannot be simultaneously true. The dichotomy is not false.

    Value is similar, but different. Since it is always conferred by a "valuer", it cannot be intrinsic. It is subjective. It requires an assessor to make an assessment, even if that assessor is the thing itself. Every living thing has value to itself - it will fight for its life. Therefore, every living thing has value. There is no objective "hierarchy of value" , unless you are going to claim the existence of an external arbiter of "objective" value.

    Beorn's argument (I'm guessing here, I didn't read his posts) is that (the Judeo-Christian OT) God confers authority upon man to have animals "in subjection", I.e. to do with them what he will. Therefore, man's rights are God-ordained and animal's rights are whatever the hell we say they are. Convenient. Banal.

    Take God out of the picture and what can we say about rights? Only that (intrinsically) we all have essentially the same rights or entitlements, (which is the same as saying no species has rights over another) since we are all merely mortal creatures who happen to share an arbitrary vector in space-time.
    There is no authority to confer superior status upon mankind, so when he presumes to do so himself, his argument is without foundation and we agree that it is "egocentric" or more specifically anthropocentric.

    This is not necessarily a "bad" thing. All beings are, basically, egocentric. The Selfish Gene, yadayadayada.

    However, it does mean there are *logically* only two positions here. One for believers, and one for the rest.
    Assuming we can defeat the God position, there is only one left, ipso facto.
    QED.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #127
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I don't believe in intrinsic rights. Either those endowed by a creator or that you are simply born with. I don't think anyone or anything is born with much at all except ability to negotiate their environment.

    I do believe in privileges granted out of compassion, and I don't have any particular choice but to recognize that authority (the state, for instance) enforces certain rules that are "rights". Though if I want to disagree with them it's pretty simple to do so (but not always easy to implementation) and those disagreements have occurred and re-occurred throughout history. We are born into societies that provide us (or not) with rights that are enforced (or not) within that society.

    In the absense of rights: there are no rules, there is no defining order. Only people, animals, the choices they make, and the agreements the have with each other. Morality is just something invented.

    As humans, we play god as we see fit. Personally, I don't read much into arguments that judge relative morality (despite having my own moral hierarchies), but I think you can reasonably assess whether certain actions will provide what people have defined as having a positive outcome or not. That's as close as you get to objective, as far as I can tell.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  8. #128
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I don't believe in intrinsic rights.
    I'm not sure if I believe in them. They are a useful construct.
    To deny their existence is tantamount to saying no one has any rights, which leads to the exploitation of the weak by the strong. If there are no rights there are no wrongs. If we are going to claim rights for anyone, we have to extend those same rights to everyone. Or, we don't have to, but we have no justification for doing otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #129
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I'm not sure if I believe in them. They are a useful concept.
    To deny their existence is tantamount to saying no one has any rights, which leads to the exploitation of the weak by the strong. If there are no rights there are no wrongs.
    Hmm. Well, does it matter what we believe? Because if the strong want to exploit the weak - they can if they are able. Like I said, I don't believe that the rights are intrinsic. I think you're born and the environment doesn't especially care one way or another. But! Can we make up rules? Sure.

    You need:

    - rules (ideally based in something reasonable, but they don't have to be)
    - enforcement tools

    We can create rules and enforcement tools in society which will prevent the strong from exploiting the weak. Or at least make it less convenient. (As an aside I'll note strength and weakness are not disposed of in that model, it's just who has the power is rearranged.)

    So, you can deny the (intrinsic) existence of rights while simultaneously creating a concept of rights to enforce.

    If we are going to claim rights for anyone, we have to extend those same rights to everyone. Or, we don't have to, but we have no justification for doing otherwise.
    Hmm, I'd agree with that, but the only logical justification I can think of for unequal rights is competition.

    Let me think of an example of unequal rights that I'd think of as fair...hmm, ok investments, for instance. People are given unequal yields (they have a right to the return) based on the amount of investment they put in.

    But for clarity you're really talking about rights of opportunity, yes?
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  10. #130
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Dammit, you can't claim Ti and refuse to proofread! It's against the RULES!
    go wild...

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Value is similar, but different. Since it is always conferred by a "valuer", it cannot be intrinsic. It is subjective. It requires an assessor to make an assessment, even if that assessor is the thing itself. Every living thing has value to itself - it will fight for its life. Therefore, every living thing has value. There is no objective "hierarchy of value" , unless you are going to claim the existence of an external arbiter of "objective" value.
    true, but the subjective value we give other living things - while might not being intrinsic - that doesn't mean it's any less useful for humans to go by:


Similar Threads

  1. [NT] Who are your best non-NT friends?
    By mbeerti in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 10-13-2014, 12:09 AM
  2. Non-human persons
    By UniqueMixture in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-29-2012, 08:03 PM
  3. What are the most sought after personality types? and the ones you detest...
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
  4. Are you a socially active person?
    By theadoor in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 12:41 AM
  5. [ENFP] Are NFs overly non offensive ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 05:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO