Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 2

Post subject: Re: Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID) PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:13 pm

1. My use of the logical symbols is one of convention.
2. The reiteration, R, is one of convention also, I think. Fitch System?
3. I could have used Propositional Logic, but the Modality point would have become less obvious. I also intend this to stand against or in comparison with the arguments of necessary notions of Anselm of Canterbury/Alvin Carl Plantinga/Kurt Gödel.
The Ontological Argument here:!
4. God is not some senseless entity. God does fulfill a possible description that we can have cognition of. Thus the definition. It's also important to counter the notions of a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), i.e., the unserious counter arguments.
5. I'm a Scientific Deist or God Realist on the issue of God, if it's not clear already. That is, God must have a kind of reality and must fit a certain description. Thus "God possibly exists", standing by itself, is a base assertion, one that can never win hearts and minds. Also, now the God of Modality/Possibility is a logical notion. One step up from earlier...
6. If you drop the definition or the possible knowledge entailment, then you also drop the cognition of God. You are then forced to believe in a God blindly and this is simply not my God. Also, the FSM appears again. Besides, I think most believers have an idea of what objectives their God of belief are supposed to fulfill and you, the Atheist, don't care about it, obviously. Thus, I admit no such thing as believing in a God blindly! Final!

Post subject: Denoting These "Americans"! PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:28 am

One of my last topics for the PN forum this year is about this:
denoting the (U.S.) Americans.
Popularly speaking, Americans are the U.S. Americans. This is the collective hat for every U.S. (American) citizen.
Now, we, the Europeans, put them proper:
the U.S. Native/True Americans - Native/True American origin/ethnicity (Indians born north of the Mexican border and south of the Canadian border.)
the U.S. Euro-Americans - European origin/ethnicity
the U.S. Afro-Americans - African origin/ethnicity
the U.S. Latino-Americans - Latin origin/ethnicity (1/3 possible equivalents, see other 2/3)
the U.S. Hispanic-Americans - Hispanic origin/ethnicity (1/3 possible equivalents, see other 2/3)
the U.S. South-Americans - South American origin/ethnicity (1/3 possible equivalents, see other 2/3)
the U.S. Asian-Americans - Asian origin/ethnicity
So, fellow Europeans, although decrepit and corrupt, here we have our U.S. American buffet! Cheers! :)
[Edit:] PS: I realise you can get all sorts of funny "blends" and as time passes, you probably write it most safely U.S. Mixed-American - Mixed origin/ethnicity. You can also make these (1 example): the U.S. Euro-South-American!
PS2: Uggghh... I've forgotten to add the native U.S. Americans. Now I've put them first! They do make up 10% of the U.S. American population.
PS3: Uggghh... I've also forgotten to add the U.S. Asian-Americans. (By reminder of i_blame_blame.)

Post subject: Re: Denoting These "Americans"! PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:11 pm

The main attack is on the words "Caucasian" and "White" for describing ethnicity/"race" (that I loathe to write since the "race" only applies to dogs and entirely distinct kinds of animals). So these "white" Americans now find themselves as "Euro-Americans" in the pattern of writing Afro-Americans which may come as a BLOW to some!
Now you can write to Jon Stewart and call him "Euro-American" and see if you get any response!

Post subject: Re: Theist. Would you give up your moral sense? PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:17 pm

To give up one's moral sense, i.e., the 10 commandments, is to be a false theist! Final!

Post subject: Re: Theist. Would you give up your moral sense? PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:42 pm

Is the set unworkable? How come? Explain, please. I see a predecessor to a modern framework of laws that is clearly expressed. Thou shalt not kill and so on... Isn't this what the most modern laws also say? That you're not entitled the judgement of putting another man to death (in private and except in cases of self-defence).

Post subject: Re: "You Can’t Prove A Negative" PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:50 am

I think I can give this version:
Theists claim they can rightfully believe in God and some other.
Atheists in my opinion are counter to this claim (and the hosts of others). Some atheists even deeply resent to have a possible notion of something extraordinary.
So in the modest view, being reasonable people, people should shut up about other people's (religious) beliefs.

Post subject: Re: Argument to prove "bge" must have a cause PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:34 am To be added

What is "bge"? Beginning? Is there anyone who claims uncaused beginning? I'd like to know some references.
You might argue that St. Aquinas supposes "a prime mover", but then again this is God, God-self. When you're at the ultimate level, I at some point might go with that (even though I now hold an eternal God or God making God!

Post subject: Re: Miracle Probabilities - The Effect of Testimony PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:43 pm

I'd just like to write that it seems to me now that scientists try to keep up a "politically" correct picture of science where their knowledge stands as essentially exhaustive.
Thus, there are a number of "miracles"/scientific anomalies out there that are kept out of the picture of the general public. I've found one such example in Roger Penrose's book, Road to Reality, where he names a host of particles that are "up for grabs"! Be critical! Be investigative!

Post subject: Re: An Attack on Indexicality PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:01 am

Just to add to this: there are clearly programmable opportunities for indexical-free language and you should be able to see this from the examples above. [input_name] for "I", [input_that_sentence-pointed-to] for "that", and so on... Even though the Hiker example comes out different, it's no problem to use the approach to the "that"-word in it, just for one example. Clearly then, there may be some kind of underlying logical syntax/code that may be applied (for better understanding to various problems in the future).
For instance, what about the possibility to provide a logic/mathematics for all things, including language and such... Although I feel saturated with the indexicals right now, it should be exciting to see where the spin-offs are going in the question of, fx., the alleged separation between belief and belief state that John Perry mentions in the end of his paper... There are probably many more to go at, for example in psychology.

Post subject: Re: On Paradoxes PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:49 am

I'm going to work on it for as long as there is life in me and there are paradoxes left to beat (by better explanations, primarily).
Tell me how your views on Godel advance, please. I'd like to know. I've also written some on "Godel-Incompleteness" in the Phil. of Science section.

Post subject: Re: Comment on Brains in Vats Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:59 pm

As a short answer, one that I will edit, I can certainly say that there's no way that philosophy escapes reality. So even the philosophical arguments, whatever they are, need to be plausible (in realistic terms, otherwise they can't obtain a truth value). You can't simply write something, call it philosophy and think that it applies if it's rubbish, fantasy or whatever... There are indeed quality criteria... Brains in Vats: even if you envision a brain in a vat in a world in world type of setting, that is, it's possible to construct a brain in a vat in this world of reality (or some other), you need to show for it's absolute impossibility to always obtain "a natural death" in case of an intruder who destroys your brain-in-a-vat. Usually, brains in vats come as the idea that some God-like scientists set up the whole reality in this kind of machine (brains in vats). Further, one should show for how this can be sustained as life-form and engaging in an illusionary reality in a way that can be perceived as natural without any limitations whatsoever! I think this is both impossible and implausible and this is my conclusion. "Brains in vats" lacks the virtues to be convincing!

Post subject: "You Can’t Prove A Negative" Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:47 am

Yes you can! By not proving a positive! That is, as far into the work of analysis, you are "proving" a negative everything you must admit to not finding anything under a certain scope of research, whatever this may be! The LHC looking for the Higg's boson or something else... Dr Michael V. Antony writes in his article, The New Atheism - Where’s The Evidence?, that "2. You Can’t Prove A Negative" and I disagree with this, obviously, in naming a "category"/research "null"/"nothing"/"zero finding". [Edit:] It's as simple as identifying an empty place! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: "You Can’t Prove A Negative" PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:22 am

Should I write down a deduction for you given some premises? Would it help? I am fully aware of the Paradox of Ravens.
Example for your thoughts:
You look for a highly valuable object on a public square. Well, the square is empty. There is nothing there that's highly valuable to you ie. golden necklace by Gucci or some. So you have proven by time and place that there is not a highly valuable object for you in this public square! Comprende?

Post subject: Re: "You Can’t Prove A Negative" Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:38 pm

...but it definitely means snow doesn't exist where they have been up to this point ie. there has not been snow "here", place, in this period, time. And this is indeed proven! However, this "negative" usually is understood in the context of (natural) laws, but even these must have the possibility to be "proven", confirmed - so consequently I'd say one should be able to "prove" a negative law as well because they need to apply to reality and they need a possible set-up of scientific equipment which the absurdly asserted so-called laws never will have the possibility of because they are simply false!

Post subject: Re: For Bill Wiltrack - inherent good of organized labour PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:08 am

Can I add that I certainly don't think organised labour is a special interest group?! There is no contradiction in going to strike and simultaneously maintaining the Coolidge dictum (with regards to striking limits for workers). At least in Norway there's a public council or board that supervises these strikes and gives ruling over its possible risk to public safety. In my opinion, people should always seek to organise and organisation is indeed a trait of civilisation! This also applies to work-life!

Post subject: Adolf Hitler had NO education! PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:44 pm

Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Adolf Hitler had NO education! Ha, ha, ha, ha, what a complete f*ck-up! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D The sh*t-lewd, dubious Adolf Hitler here:!!!!!!!!! Ha, ha, ha!

Post subject: Re: Should Pornography be banned? PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:41 pm

Without having read all the posts in this thread, I think there are several understandings here from which people are discussing from. I think it should be a good idea to disclose your own understanding and basis for rejecting or approving porn. Many of us speak from consensus and I'd like to pick up on that. So, from consensus:
Assumption: If people are honestly interested in making porn for a (comfortable) living and without being coerced whatsoever, overtly or covertly, then...
Conclusion: the making of porn should be allowed, given that the above-18s, usually, normatively, are the consumers. Assumption: If people who are making porn risk losing their legal rights and usual respect among the citizens and their names are being recorded so as to be persecuted or the makers of porn are overtly or covertly coerced into making porn then...
Conclusion: the making of porn should be banned (for all), excepting, possibly, nudity. General note: there should be carried out good sociological examinations as to what the porn industry represents so that people can make an informed choice on it. Generally, if porn is allowed by laws and no apparent felonies are reported or acted upon, there is indeed a natural inclination to indulge in it, at least from a young age. I see no apparent breaches of personal moral if one is purchasing porn if no good information is available that can lead you to other conclusions. It should be fair to say that openness on sexuality, including legal porn, has brought people to a more healthy sexual awareness, I suspect. But that said, I see no reason for people to act like porn stars. Porn doesn't give you any justification for betraying someone. Besides, medicine can actually do a better job in informing people on good self-respect, natural empathy, integrity, sex-education and the fine possibilities for leading repectful healthy sexual relationships both to yourself and your partner.

Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Philosophical Error Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:40 pm

If you read some book and forget a part of it, you probably look it up again to check what it says! This distinction is not arbitrary! There are also things about nature that you may make up in your mind and thus you can check if nature is in this way or not. You mind doesn't constitute reality because it's only a part of it! Rather, your argument tears down a whole bunch of useful concepts and explanations because you happen to see your mind and (all of) reality as one. A kind of Berkeleian? It may just happen to be a fallacy this argument of yours! A kind of make-believe!

Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Philosophical Error Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:41 pm

Are you describing zen or contextualism? Are you claiming that the world is wholly subjective or objective? At least, I've written this on the independent world: The text - "Metaphysics, Another Proof of the External World I am and my being of perception is my internal world. This internal world is my mind, but since I have a mind and genetics tell me I'm a genetic representation of my parents, the function of the mind must follow my being that has been given the birth by my parents, therefore my parents must have minds too and as people die, my parents will and I remain. As my parents represents others who also die, I die. That which remains when I'm dead, is the external world, the world between myself, my parents and others." So how can you argue that your passing away/dying away will be any different than your parents or your children? Personally, I go with the distinctions because they add information, one way or another.

Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Philosophical Error Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:35 pm

To assume that you know the "inner" thinking or thoughts of others without having them properly expressed is a view verging to lunacy! That is, unless a proper telepathic connection is established. Even though, this may be hard to maintain over any period of time. Thus the "inner world" of people! Yes...?

Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Philosophical Error Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:09 pm

I'll end my participation here (not definitely, though) by this: It seems to be an exposition of "extreme solipsism" or "subjectivism", being an emphasis on one's own awareness, by the interpretation of blackbox (possibly by the mechanism of "extended feelings out into the world" or some kind of "telepathic mechanism if such a phenomenon can exist or to the degree...". I actually have some sympathy to it, but I think it can be achieved only by proper ethics and in a (very) limited way. I'd also like to add that by throwing oneself into such a view, neck over head, one risks losing (the sight of) or ignoring many good ideas that may be fruitful in one's philosophical life/interest. One note on the "divide" of thoughts and perceptions: what I find on thoughts is that they are abstractions, ideas and fantasies from one's mind while perceptions relate to impressions from the "outside" of your head, from the external nature. Therefore this is also a useful distinction one shouldn't throw on the bonfire, I think.

Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Philosophical Error Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:31 pm

From your answer, I have two more sentences: where do you think this awareness is generated? The brain, yes? How do you explain how *this* (awareness), by yourself, is intertwined?

Post subject: Re: Atheists vrs Skeptics Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:34 am

There's a quote from one archeologist (supporter of evolution theory) that goes like this:
If a rabbit (?, some animal) is found in the basin of some formation of some layer in Iraq (?, some place), then, surely, evolution theory is wrong! That is, where you expect the evolution theory to be falsified, it's kept up and running!

Post subject: The Open Society and Its Enemies Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:30 pm

I have taken notice of an article naming V for Vendetta, the movie, and The Open Society and Its Enemies, the 2 volumes work by Popper. I have also for a period of time been very irritated by the Paranoia issue of PN. I don't think that issue is worthy of philosophy, but a fashionable, hip piece of written junk. I'm thinking we can in common write a thread where we shape the ideal society with a premise of the current society and taking it a few years into the future. The surveillance issue is also of interest in this regard of the ideal society. So the idea is that we can do better than V for Vendetta, The Open Society .... and Paranoia issue combined. The forum is a kind of ideal in its self as you immediately get the criticism of what you write. Perhaps we'll end up with an ideal society each or we'll be able to make one great society together beating many other ideas on the subject. Here it goes!

Post subject: Re: The Open Society and Its Enemies Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:14 pm

All I hope is that Emrys Westacott's "Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?" is not a "chain-argument", that is we exercise better morals because we are more likely to acquire justice in case we become victims (and the potential psychopaths end up in jail). It's with pleasure, therefore, I find this article presented with Philosophy Now! And I think it lies very much in the vein of this topic.
I'm still on it and will be so for a very long time... (Political Philosophy is not so highly ranked on my pri. list.)
Besides, isn't Karl Popper wrong in comparing Nazism with the Platoist Philosopher Kings. Now that I find that Hitler virtually had no education and that the fine sentiments would be completely missing in Nazi ideology, I think Popper may be wrong. Aren't almost every politician today of university education. It's rare, and for good reasons, I suspect, that politicians today have very little education. Therefore, it seems Plato scores a fine point after all!

Post subject: Re: Big Bang Thought Experiment Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:31 pm

Hypothetically, being a thought experiment, I think everyone has the duty to accept truth! So in this sense, I would agree with the scientists, but then again, what if they just happened to emulate God, duplicating the miracle? Would that make God non-existent? Of course not! Just think of genes and GMOs and all that... Ahhh... still a deist (if not the theist, the OP asks for)...

Post subject: Comment on Brains in Vats Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:56 am

From my website:
"Brains in Vats. Non-efficacious. It has no effect to our relationship with nature despite that we're in this "simulation". Equally, Brains in Vats have nothing more to say in Epistemology than to posit God [on a cloud] as a master of universe. Actually, they're equally good or bad and thus not under serious consideration." I'll add further: just as you can abuse mathematics like in the case of Zeno's paradox, Brains in Vats is an abuse over what can be said with words analogous to Zeno's mathematics. I'd therefore call "Brains in Vats" a formal criticism, but one that doesn't have any ontological virtue, it's impossible to make its reality plausible or not! What is your opinion on Brains in Vats/Brain in Vat/Brains in Vat/whatever brain,vat?

Post subject: Re: Comment on Brains in Vats Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:53 pm

So how do you know that you are not God or a part of God?
Ontological virtue means it has no bearing on reality, as more charitable people may get the sense of. So how are you going to prove that brain-in-a-vat has any impact on our relationship to nature? Of how we live or how we discover or how we develop the next 100 years. This is the key isssue!
Prove to me that brain-in-a-vat means something beyond Zeno's paradox, mister! Why shouldn't I be able to gather knowledge beyond the speculation of God or brain-in-a-vat? Given life's premises, we have no other choice for real! So what if we die and find ourselves in a brain-in-a-vat, still, given our (likely) past and our development in human history this far, I see no reason to not keep going the way we've used to, ie. develop science and enjoy knowledge of life!

Post subject: Re: Comment on Brains in Vats Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:18 pm

Another point, if we end up in Heaven, are we really less justified to speak of knowledge! Of course not! Then Brain-in-a-vat... enters the same...

Post subject: Friend and foe philosophers! - Who are your friends and... PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:14 pm

Addition - Friend and Foe
Bertrand Russell - Service: Principia Mathematica and the attempt to unite Logics and Mathematics
Alfred North Whitehead - Service: Principia Mathematica and the attempt to unite Logics and Mathematics and Process Philosophy, possibly
Possibly friends also:
Paul Ricoeur - Service: Fine work in Philosophy of language
Jacques Derrida - Service: Fine work in Philosophy of language
Ferdinand de Saussure - Service: Fine work in Philosophy of language
Socrates - Crime: Ignorance and "I know nothing!"

Post subject: Re: Friend and foe philosophers! - Who are your friends and ... Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:58 pm

I can add 3 more people "of interest" who are possibly on the Friend part of the list. These are:
Paul Ricoeur
Jacques Derrida
Ferdinand de Saussure
They're all language philosophers and at the present I don't have the knowledge to pass a good judgment on their efforts other than being fascinated by their work to the extent they are possibly on the Friend list.

Post subject: Re: Friend and foe philosophers! - Who are your friends and ... Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:58 pm

I'll add Bertrand Russell and Alfred Norman Whitehead for their Principia Mathematica and for trying to unite Logics and Mathematics as friends! Whitehead also, possibly, for Process Philosophy, although it is by and large unknown to me presently!
Also another foe: Socrates - Crime: Ignorance and "I know nothing!"

Post subject: Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:01 pm

Let's speculate that Hitler has been most interested in Eugenics and a kind of Darwinism (and possibly Utopia, by the deluded Nazi mind, in the far end) and that Stalin has been most interested in Power and Control, being a control-freak. Excuse me if I pathologise these two people, but they are responsible for killing a large number, thus I draw the conclusion they must have been marked by insanity to a significant extent! Ahhh... I speculate...
[Edit, 14.02.2011:] I've added " the deluded Nazi mind...". I'm not particularly willing to delve on the speculation of Utopia can arise after the holocaust of people X, fx. Nazi persecution of the Jews, just in case they could have been successful in exterminating them. This is mainly because I don't think one can justify the "abjection" or that one can live with such a relatively high moral cost, i.e., the moral cost cascades through time in such a fashion that utopia can never arise, even though this is (repulsively) debateable! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Fight the Cancer Before It Happens to You! Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:14 pm

[Edit, 23.07.2010:] I see that you don't ignore the seeming advantage women have when it's about cancer, but that you try to point to other factors for nullifying my theory of women actually having a different relationship to their bodies in terms of feelings, making women avoid cancer in greater degrees than men, when indeed I think that most other factors are more or less the same. One should note that risky behaviour can indicate, also, such an inferior relationship to one's own feelings already in young age, ie. heavy drinking among young men. I also note that you fail to come up with the good statistics backing your claims. [End of edit.]
[Edit, 06.07.2010:] Besides, modern women and men have almost the same patterns when it comes to "smoke, drink and work". Haven't you heard about "double-working" women? Also, the smoking has come down heavily before 2001 as this set (to which the link points) is from 2001 to 2007. You should also note that cancer strikes, predominantly, the older scope of the population so the fact of heavy drinking young men doesn't have any (particular) impact. I agree to "Avoiding carcinogenic substances is the best you can achieve in the avoidance of cancer." This is not about the mental concept of "emotions", it's about neurologic signals, "feelings", in your body before cancer occurs! Thus, this writing is not about some kind of "magic" cure. No, it's about "Cancer-Prevention Measures"! So, what I try to point out, is the relation a person has to one's own feelings (in the body) and not some mental size of sensing sadness and so on. The claim is, simply, that when people care for a "natural" relationship to their feelings, they can in great parts avoid cancer. To internalise a "mechanistic body image"/"reject natural body feelings" can therefore lead to cancer/increased probability for cancer in my opinion! This should come in addition to other good advice such as a healthy diet, physical exercise and the avoidance of carcinogenic substances! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Fight the Cancer Before It Happens to You! Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:26 pm

I agree to some extent with your emphasis on stress, even including possibly that hazardous environment also puts stress on your body ie. being subject to carcinogenics puts a load on the body to get rid of it, lowering the "energies"/electricity to sustain the feelings that support your immune system and against abnormalities by cell life (cell division, cell breathing, cell workings).
So, I'm looking for the best range of feelings, not being below a certain value and not, possibly, being too high either.

Post subject: Re: Fight the Cancer Before It Happens to You! Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:43 pm

I've been thinking that my writing is on a stage where the next step is to actually enter the field and develop techniques like making a measuring device that measures the electricity between the fingers with a person who is typically resting and calm (for steady signals) and so on (making a data bank on these data gathered from "high and low" in society.

Post subject: The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Phil. Disc. Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:48 am

I've been wondering if Dr. Sam Harris is right about ethics as mere psychology. I think it's plausible that he's at least partly right! (I'm also wondering if this has been said/written by myself while in the ethics semester at university in 2000.) But here it goes:
If this is not about priorities, ethically, beyond the moment Utopia takes effect, it should be plausible that ethics is merely psychology and some more! So what does morality mean as expressed by ethics if it all comes down to being a healthy and happy person? Isn't this the fact in case it is true that the natural sciences (and possibly in combination with the social sciences, incl. psych) that ethics is "useless"/not necessary as own discipline in philosophy? (I consider psychology/neurology natural science in this writing, also.) Abolish ethics in philosophy?

Post subject: Re: The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Phil. Disc. Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:31 pm

My question is however, do you seriously imply that psychology doesn't know what health and happiness is when it's conducted in normative terms? Turning it a little, I don't think physicists get that much (useful) input from the philosophers these days! As such I think you fail to address these three issues: Utopia, scientific confirmation of health and happiness. You are therefore not entirely on the subject, I think.

Post subject: Re: The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Phil. Disc. Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:01 am

Metadigital wrote: Isn't one of the major points of philosophy to try and figure out what things like happiness are? With psychology alone, wouldn't any explanation end up being mechanistic or reductionist? Wouldn't it have to attempt to explain these things in terms of brain chemistry, behavioral patterns, or cognitive mechanisms? Would that give us a complete picture? I'm skeptical of that. What would guide psychology? Where would it go? How would it benefit us? Why bother with it? It seems to me like there's a lot of things that psychology can't tackle alone without the help of philosophy. I think this applies to all the sciences.The question is if science is capable of answering ethics in its entirety until Utopia? If Utopia is achieved, what does ethics mean beyond that other than considering priorities like whether to go base-jumping or surfing and other priorities of insignificance (because one lives in Utopia)? Isn't Utopia very much achievable by science, you think? I think it's plausible we can achieve Utopia even by a severe stagnation in today's science, we have what we need! Now, I'm not going to speculate if psychology can answer ethics alone because the question isn't principally important to this topic. Perhaps you can raise it under the Phil. of Science? Where would psychology go? Everywhere that's relevant for psychology to go until psychology contains a complete explanation or has reached explanatory exhaustion according to possibilities. Subject as such needs no "guidance", it just needs development! My dear, where is philosophy itself going to go in case it needs "guidance"? Exactly the same answer again! A subject gives itself once it's clear that it's possible to develop it. You should remember how much that used to be considered philosophy in the past until it branched out into various scientific disciplines.

Post subject: Re: The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Phil. Disc. Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Let me tell it in a different way: Science should by this point be very much able to determine good phyical health and good mental health. It should also be able to determine if people are happy in a healthy way (not enjoying crime like rapes and other violations of people).
Now that we are able to do this, by fMRI and all the rest, shouldn't we just stick to the rules and regulations that fulfill these objectives the best? Of course, we should! Otherwise, we support what we should kill, the crime, the unethical!
If you think about it, everyone likes to discover truth, to develop, to puzzle, to play, to be curious, to make enterprises, to display themselves by who they are and their skills and knowledge in general. So, is there any mystery in determining what the obstacle is in achieving this for potentially every single person on the planet? Certainly not! And we don't need ethics to do it either!
So to end this: give me one example that require ethics to be solved! I'll answer every one of your questions within the scope of health, both phy. and men., and happiness in the scope of opportunities!
Good luck!

Post subject: Re: The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Phil. Disc. Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:08 am

Metadigital writes:
"1. America sends a lot of food to countries where starvation is a huge problem. This is done out of concern for the well being of those people. The populations of the countries that receive this aid constantly grow just above the level of food available. Is continuing to send food to these rising populations (who are now dependent on aid) ethical?"
I think this kind of problem may be one of the simplest. Without touching the philosophical vocabulary concerning ethics, I think one should send sufficient food to food deprived populations as well as enter discussion on what is the desired population level in these areas/countries or this area/country. In addition, one may want to facilitate about changes that get the problem areas or countries out this cycle. All in all, the area of jurisdiction enter some kind of general vote on the country's future on a number of issues which are all reasonable, like a key issue of population. According to this, planning takes place to make permanent and self-sustaining changes. I mean, one has over 260 nations in the world where one country should be a good example to this area/country in question. Do I need to go further?
Metadigital writes:
"2. In a similar situation, America sends financial aid to foreign countries that have weak infrastructures. This financial aid, of course, is given on a conditional basis. Because these countries develop an infrastructure that relies on American aid to avoid an internal collapse, they become dependent this aid to the point of damaging their own sovereignty over their affairs. Is this an ethical practice for America?"
The aid is all well and good! I think you are unclear on why this money damages their sovereignty. Rather (US) America should facilitate a richer financial life for this nation in addition, perhaps with the help of other nations as well. It's clear that countries that receive financial help they become dependent on, are in a situation where more development is needed and to deny this extra help is to waste resources to a deficient country, obviously! A well working country is a country that usually generates a surplus in the eyes of the world, in being hospitable, having exciting culture, generating fine industry and minds. All in all just stays healthy and being a civilised place to the world, including taking deep participation into Res. and Dev. and knowledge business (incl. education). This is also without any philosophical ethics jargon!
Metadigital writes:
3. To stop picking on America, and to illustrate a real world event that took place; A hospital is choosing between two people to receive a new kidney. They have a list that they usually go by, but a private individual has offered $1,000,000 to be placed at the top of the list. This rich individual is a heavy drinker and will likely die in the next few years anyway, but the money can be used to upgrade medical facilities and benefit more people (keep in mind that this is the early 20th century!). The person who is actually at the head of the list is young with many more years of potential life left. What is the ethical decision to make? (I'll post the decision actually made after your reply.)
1. It's unknown whether the hospital actually needs more equipment and thus I see no definite use for the extra money: the kidney goes to the young man.
2. The other way may be that the hospital needs the equipment dearly (in life saving terms and not plastic surgery) and may help 10 extra people every year from dying (far outweighing the young man's extra years). Thus: the kidney goes to the rich man. It should also be noted that is without corruption and that the transplant list is without absolute rules! This is also without any philosophical ethics jargon!
There you have them. You may object by saying this is ethics and thereby philosophy, but I say of course that this is ethics solved by purely scientific considerations! There is not one word that pertains to philosophy in them!

Post subject: Re: "X shares Z% of its DNA with Y" means what? Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:42 pm

Similarity? Therefore family members tend to have more similar genes than to strangers and I guess this rolls over to the species and the rest... No?

Post subject: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:16 am

From my blog, today,
"Amnesty International is a disservice to the justice system in Europe! My investigations into the mental health industry make it evident that Amnesty International is nothing more than a political tool for prejudices to the developing world and doing minimally for ensuring the well-being of Europeans at large (Amnesty International is indeed comparable to Human Rights Watch in USA). I sense Europe's justice system is cringing by its incredible naivity and sympathy to criminal lunatics, effectively forcing the common European to make "gang deals" on "the street".
I hereby call for new investigations into what this overt and naive sympathy implies to the justice system, people's sense of security and the preventive effect the actual punishment of today has on crime! One may also look into capital punishment versus life-long imprisonment while one is at it! It's also worth noting lethal needle injection versus shooting and the guillotine versus the electric chair, the shooting and the guillotine being the better options in my opinion! Heartily yours!"
One should stop desensitising people of crime like it doesn't matter. Crime is incredibly tweaked, in Europe, to favour criminals in terms of relaxed punishment and I think Amnesty International has played a central part in promoting this view. This may be the time to consider building a new organisation in Europe for promoting a better justice system that cares more for crime-prevention!

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:28 am

My brother and I have chatted today about the work of Amnesty International and I will follow their reports more closely to see if I can support my suspicions, but, hey, Amnesty International may improve too!

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:08 am

In the beginning, being at young age, this has been my impression too, Amnesty International working for the freedom of speech and for the legal rights of people, but as it has developed in recent years, I think it has taken a turn for the worse. Their reports are more or less obvious results of the rich/poor divide and they somehow come out very imbalanced when they speak from such a stereo-typical "Western" standpoint almost as they want the rest of the world to forever bow to the "Western" culture (and money). Therefore, their reports mostly come from the places where change isn't the most immediate and where people are likely to suffer and struggle for another 20-50 years. So, yes, as I've matured and become more reflected, they now appear less respectable and honest!

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:50 am

"They", Amnesty International, have a considerable following of volunteers and a good part of them may actually be Muslim so therefore I don't know if your post's message follows, Wootah. I also think it's funny that AI never mentions any estimate over its size, but usually refers to number of cases and their London office...

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:16 pm

Well, I've sent a letter to Amnesty International, , today with these additional words:
Dear Amnesty International
I've written this (on my blog and on this forum)
that will hopefully generate a positive discussion. The actual text is this:
bla, bla (the text I've written above).
(Parts of this text don't appear on my blog.) What is your response? I'm thinking about reviewing the history of Amnesty International from its first action in Portugal until today, commenting on it and presenting analysis. Sincerely yours
(My name)

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:24 pm

...effectively forcing the common European to make "gang deals" on "the street".Isn't this right? Is our justice system (the European) as strong as that in USA or Singapore? Can't it improve? Is our punishment today crime-preventive of street violence that can cause life-impairment of disabilities while the common violator only gets year and a half in prison and rarely is forced to pay any compensation of any sort? Happy-slapping phenomenon, no? Crime is cool? To me, the European justice system today, commonly, seems to support the words in the quote above and I do think this is a problem and that Amnesty Int. has chosen to ignore/let it slip through the fingers in large parts. I rarely can recall any case at all where Amnesty Int. has taken the side of the victim at all in Europe in recent times. Though they address women's rights with respect to domestic violence, I can't find a single actual court case or public speaking of theirs that call for more strict (and preventive) punishment. I think we need to get tougher on crime so that common people can once again focus on business life instead of "snaking" and burning off all the energy through the maze of common threat of violence in society. Perhaps, this is part of USA's success over Europe. They can confidently go to work and expect safety for themselves and family and friends while Europeans live a different life... [Edit, 02.05.2010:] With regards to police and security, Anjali Rao has stated the classic comment on CNN, approx: "with us here in Hong Kong, police can come right up and question us, but that's fine, that's the way it is here. It's no problem!" I find this comment so on the point as to what insanity the so-called lieu of privacy is reaching in Europe, by its sheer paranoia or criminal intents and activities. I just sense that some people pull out the "police-state", unable to account for what it's supposed to mean or any actual police-officer prowling any person to that extent. People also seem to forget, at least here in Norway, that any potentially feeble-minded phone operator employee can sit there and review your last 3 months of calls or look up your current address. This isn't only it: bank employees, feeble-minded or not, have the same possibility to review your financial life for the last 5 years. Yet it's only this unfounded air-blowing "police-state" that seems to be such a (moron) catch-phrase, like people think they're so clever and insightful when they can assert that one day the ruling class of Police will control everything, like being their own personal Nostradamus'es. Alternatively, if Amnesty Int. isn't playing its role better in promoting justice in Europe, I'd like to call for a new organisation like "Citizens' Action for a Better Justice System in Europe" or something thereof. I believe USA has quite a few of these organisations and they seem to do a lot better in terms of business and attracting talent. I don't want to conduct my activity in Europe on its peak of kids' energy-business-strategy, knowing that some poor, kid bastard is going to die if I don't perform well enough (just in case this proves to be the European strategy to drive its business, now or in the future). It just isn't serious to rely on such menace and lunacy! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:14 pm

I've written this earlier on my blog,, from Monday, 27 July 2009:
"The "soft power" of psychiatry
Amnesty International, I hold you to it in case of torture taking place domestically, ie. UK, and in Europe. I get the notion that you have many histories in your archives and informally. Even if the torture cases are few and far between, they can be deadly severe. I address you directly as you are "a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all." It seems to me that you like very much to focus on the high society's moral worries and not the dirty instances of people barely able to speak and stay clean. Obviously, I sense it's nice of you to issue the problems of poverty that may turn out to be the root of those other problems you issue, "the release of prisoners of conscience, fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners" and the rest. However, Europe is considered among the most advanced and this is good, of course, but it also brings problems of a different nature like that of hidden torture schemes, due to blatant corruption, subjecting mostly those who are easily muted, the very young and not so young. I will at least be vigilant and follow the cases I get to hear about. Now, I haven't mentioned so much the header of this contribution to my blog, the "soft power" of psychiatry, but it's my opinion that psychiatry should be one the most important areas to keep an eye on regarding the human rights for the aforementioned people who are silenced." [Edit, 04.07.2010:] I read the RSS feed from AI and lately they have announced very legitimate issues. All from Sudan and Indonesia and more. Subscribe to it, you too! Still, though, I sense I'm justified when it concerns the European scene! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Amnesty International is a Disservice to the Justice System! Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:09 pm

Heard from the street, presumably from an absurd person with Foreigner:
"I want to know what Law is! I want you to show me! I know you can show me how to Law! I know you can show me how to Lawyer!" So there you go! You have the encouragement right there! Come on... Make a better Europe, make a better World!

Post subject: Re: "Gender Studies" Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:06 pm

I like to think of gender studies as kind of law studies that are supposed to amend for cultural biases/dispositions against one of the genders. Women are a lot more free today, qualitatively. It's uncertain whether this is due to gender studies, but I note it. Something may come out of gender studies, but I see the bullshit too, and the consequent shifts of social hype!

Post subject: Re: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:28 am

I think it's ruled out by the first post, but if one is unwilling to see it then I guess it's an axiom, indeed... Quote: There ought to be less oughts in the world, ought there? Reiteration: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule. And so: (1)"An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule." and (2)such that there are less "actions that are defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule." and (3)is this "an action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule."?

Post subject: Re: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:00 pm

Reiteration: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule. Mike Strand wrote: "You ought to brush your teeth."Ought-less: There is a rule that says you should regularly brush your teeth. So when it's time to brush your teeth, you brush them. According to this rule, you brush your teeth when it's time to do so and this time is now. Mike Strand wrote: "You ought to work for a living."Ought-less: There is a rule that says you should work for a living. So when it's time to get work for a living, you should get work for a living. According to this rule, you should get work for a living and you should do so now as you don't work for a living yet. You may think of these "oughts" as general "oughts" and they become: fx. There is a rule that says you should work for a living because it's good for you and you are responsible and you may start a fine family and so and so.

No comments:

Post a Comment