Human Rights

FoolKiller · Mar 16, 2011

Dotini
You tell me if you think they are, but I doubt it. You are a professional, working on a contract basis, if I understand your situation correctly.

I don't think my rights are being violated because they aren't. A 40-hour work week is not a human right. Now, you answer, do you think it is and that my human rights are being violated?

Now if you were a 14 year old boy working 85 hrs/wk in a mine to support his bereaved mother, I'd say your rights were being violated.

You are changing the nature of the subject. Let's keep it on consenting adults until we get that worked out.

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Dotini
To me, maybe alone, it's a bit frustrating to listen to badly structured "debate" about whether rights are subjective, objective or some other effete and unimportant intellectual "point". The important thing to remember is that rights have always been won by people fighting for them, and continuing to fight for them to hold onto them. You can run your mouth all day long, but that does nothing to win or maintain rights. You must be willing to fight for them, and that means using force if need be.

So true. For those in the civil liberties industry especially.

Any meaningful discussion can only be based upon verifiable and discernible sets of rules. Without those sets of rules any debate is destined to be unresolvable.

Take the discussion on the nature of human rights as an example, there really exists no absolute right answer that can explain in every scenario whether (and why) a particular "right" is a human right or not. It is a "human right" if it is enshrined in the constitution (whether written or unwritten) of the country. It is not a "human right" if the constitution makes no mention of that right. To that extent, yes, the range of human rights is dependent upon the views of the majority of the society in question at the time it was formed. The "right to join/form trade unions" and the "right to bear arms" are both perfect examples of human rights that are protected in some countries but not in others.

Some remain adament in their assertion that human rights are inherently universal. Its justification? Rebuttals of the utilitarian concept of justice? I see none (in this thread).

This document, titled "philosophical foundations of human rights", outlines the basic contemporary explanations of human rights from various perspectives, ranging from religion to utility analysis and natural law to dignity preservation.

http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Shestack 1998.pdf

A short cut would be wikipedia as always
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights

Conclusion? I won't think any of the leading philosophers in the above-mentioned schools of thought would be bold enough to completely dismiss the ideas of their rival scholars.

---
Also, rather ironically, some have opined that an understanding of the foundation of rights is essential "to have [them] legally recognised universally". It does not. No one in the political circles cares what Aristotle/Locke/Kant/Rawls/Nozick say about justice. They remain (aptly so) relevant only to those inhabiting the ivory tower.

As Dotini has rightly stated, it is what the law says that matters.

Famine · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
As Dotini has rightly stated, it is what the law says that matters.

But not to this discussion.

I can sky-write it if it'll make you feel any better?

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Famine
But not to this discussion.

I can sky-write it if it'll make you feel any better?

The point is that there is simply no definite answer to all of this. I could have said this long ago when I initially joined the discussion. My previous post only shows my sympathy to Dotini's views.

What is most puzzling to me is the fact that I seem to have been an adversary of most posting in this thread. I am not a critic of human rights. I agree with you Famine's views that fundamental rights are meant to be fundamental and inalienable. You can post all day long reiterating your views. But that changes not the fact that there also exists other schools of thought that see human rights as a product of pragmatism/compromise/utility/necessity etc that one cannot lightly dismiss.

And thus my conclusion that there is no right answer.

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
But that changes not the fact that there also exists other schools of thought that see human rights as a product of pragmatism/compromise/utility/necessity etc that one cannot lightly dismiss.

And thus my conclusion that there is no right answer.

Massive contradiction.

Famine · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
The point is that there is simply no definite answer to all of this.

Which is part of the whole problem - there is.

So long as you retain the notion that human rights are subjective and can be dreamed up and dismissed by the whim of, usually, those in charge, you will be happy to accept that they can be bypassed and supplanted:

Wolf-M
as a product of pragmatism/compromise/utility/necessity

and you will be happy to accept that what is legal is right despite myriad, manifest examples of gross abuses of rights by laws. And so long as enough people are happy to blithely vote away rights in this manner, we will never have what is rightfully ours.

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Danoff
Massive contradiction.

I'm sorry? How is it contradictory? And in an massive way? Please give reasons for your remarks instead of a one-line scornful dismissal.

There is no objectively right answer because each thesis has its own merit. Philosophers may favour their own theory over others, but no one in the academic field is bold enough to say that Bentham/Mill has got their utilitarian theory wrong. More importantly, the natural law theory (which is what I discern to be your argument) is necessarily subjective in the sense that what comprises the inalienable core of human rights differ from person to person.

I for one do not see how the right to bear arms comes into the picture (and am strenuously opposed to it), but many others may disagree with me. Does it mean that I am right and others are wrong (or vice versa?)

Re Famine,

I think that is what Dotini is saying - isn't that the truth? Which led to his conclusion that "guns, money and lawyers" are there to defend the rights? (though personally I'm not sure that guns should be relevant as stated above)

Acting as the devil advocate for just a moment, why is rule by force necessarily wrong? This has been the case for thousands of years until (in Western civilisation) the end of the Thirty Years' War where those holding power started to realised that the endless wars caused more destruction to their own country than benefits they would have obtained from the military conquests.

Again it's pragmatism that led to the establishment of an international social order. Couldn't we just say that human rights (if there are such things) are only the result of human wisdom that respect for others is more conducive to one's interests than political disorder and lawlessness?

And if the maintenance of human rights no longer does any good to the society in question, its citizens are free to "vote away" any rights they dislike? After all, the divesture of the rights were done in a democratic way so no complaints, like it or leave the country!

Famine · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
Acting as the devil advocate for just a moment, why is rule by force necessarily wrong?

I don't recall anyone saying that it is.

Wolf-M
Again it's pragmatism that led to the establishment of an international social order.

Pragmatism = subjectivity = irrelevant.

Wolf-M
Couldn't we just say that human rights (if there are such things) are only the result of human wisdom that respect for others is more conducive to one's interests than political disorder and lawlessness?

You may say whatever you wish. However, politics and legislated "respect" for others are irrelevant to rights. Someone who needs a law to tell them that taking stuff from someone else is wrong is someone who has little place in any society - just as much as someone who believes a law that tells them they may take stuff from someone else is right.

Wolf-M
And if the maintenance of human rights no longer does any good to the society in question, its citizens are free to "vote away" any rights they dislike? After all, the divesture of the rights were done in a democratic way so no complaints, like it or leave the country!

Rights do not originate from public vote. Rights may not be dismissed by public vote. Laws, however, may. This is the point - this is why law is. Not. Relevant. To. This. Subject.

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Famine
I don't recall anyone saying that it is.

Pragmatism = subjectivity = irrelevant.

You may say whatever you wish. However, politics and legislated "respect" for others are irrelevant to rights. Someone who needs a law to tell them that taking stuff from someone else is wrong is someone who has little place in any society - just as much as someone who believes a law that tells them they may take stuff from someone else is right.

Rights do not originate from public vote. Rights may not be dismissed by public vote. Laws, however, may. This is the point - this is why law is. Not. Relevant. To. This. Subject.

I'm sorry, did I mention any law?

I take issue with your "Pragmatism = subjectivity = irrelevant."

That precisely was my point.

Human rights are not necessarily objective.

Asserting that anything subjective is irrelevant is only your view.

And it remains so no matter how many times you are reiterating the point.

You have still not enlightened me as to your third step showing how human rights are established.

What about the proposition I put forward n pages ago? No one cared reading it.

Wolf-M
In a state of nature, there can be no rights nor obligations. A "right" is a legal concept, it connotes an entitlement which may be enforced against some other human being. Similarly, the obverse of a right, namely an obligation, connotes a duty which others may enforce upon you.

[ed: "legal" as in a contractual relationship, not a reference to the law]

Without law and order, there can be no rights (nor obligations), unless of course you believe that they are conferred upon you by God.

What you do have, however, are freedoms. The freedom to do anything you like, including the freedom to murder anyone else.

It is because of this undesirable state ("a war of all against all") that, out of pragmatism and necessity, we all enter into a social contract from which certain rights and obligations stem, including human rights.

[Reference - extract from Thomas Hobbes: Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.]

---

It is an assumption under the social contract theory that human rights form part of the rights guaranteed by the ruler and enjoyed by the subjects.

Any government that fails to carry out its contractual obligation (the obverse of the citizens' right) therefore breaches the trust which the people have displayed by conferring power upon it. Consequence? The people will be entitled to withdraw their acceptance of the government's legitimacy.

---

Rights are not created by virtue of law, they are created by virtue of the social contract. Laws (or any rules) are only how the rulers implement their promise and discharge their obligations under the social contract.

When I have said that rights are a legal concept, the word "legal" is used in a loose manner, not referring to the actual laws that are promulgated by the state, but the mutually binding relationship that arises under the social contract.

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
I'm sorry? How is it contradictory? And in an massive way? Please give reasons for your remarks instead of a one-line scornful dismissal.

Here:

Wolf-M
one cannot lightly dismiss

Wolf-M
there is no right answer.

You dismiss lightly that which you claim cannot be lightly dismissed. Massive contradiction.

Wolf-M
There is no objectively right answer because each thesis has its own merit. Philosophers may favour their own theory over others, but no one in the academic field is bold enough to say that Bentham/Mill has got their utilitarian theory wrong.

But you claim it quite boldly.

Wolf-M
there is no right answer.

Wolf-M
More importantly, the natural law theory (which is what I discern to be your argument) is necessarily subjective in the sense that what comprises the inalienable core of human rights differ from person to person.

I for one do not see how the right to bear arms comes into the picture (and am strenuously opposed to it), but many others may disagree with me. Does it mean that I am right and others are wrong (or vice versa?)

This would be a problem if there were no method for determining who is correct. Disagreement is not particularly meaningful.

Famine · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
I'm sorry, did I mention any law?

Yes:

Wolf-M
Couldn't we just say that human rights (if there are such things) are only the result of human wisdom that respect for others is more conducive to one's interests than political disorder and lawlessness?

"Lawlessness" placed at odds with "human rights". Implication: Laws = human rights.

Wolf-M
I take issue with your "Pragmatism = subjectivity = irrelevant."

I'm sure you do.

Wolf-M
Human rights are not necessarily objective.

They are. If they are not objective they do not objectively exist.

Wolf-M
You have still not enlightened me as to your third step showing how human rights are established.

You failed to progress beyond the first step, after initially doing so (which is how we reached step two). Without acceptance that you have a right to be, independant of any other factor, and the perpetual reliance on law to form the basis of your moral system, there is neither hope nor point in discussing it further with you. Without the basis of the first two steps, the third and subsequent stages cannot be reached - you can't build a wall when the first two courses of bricks have not been laid.

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Danoff
Here:

You dismiss lightly that which you claim cannot be lightly dismissed. Massive contradiction.

But you claim it quite boldly.

This would be a problem if there were no method for determining who is correct. Disagreement is not particularly meaningful.

Is it because the fact that English is not my first language that I am completely lost at your remarks?

What did I dismiss? It is precisely because none of the theories placed forward (see the wiki link above) can be disproven/dismissed that I say that there is no one single objective right answer. I have missed the word "objective/single" in your quotation but that's because my words were quoted out of context. See my first and second posts on this page.

"Disagreement is not particularly meaningful"
I would venture to say that the discussion on the philosophy of human rights is not particularly meaningful and only serves the intellectual curiosity of some Oxbridge/Harvard don. In short, it's a matter better left within the confines of the ivory tower.

Echoing Dotini's remarks, why not talk about how the law can be improved (and how we can push for reforms) to better protect and secure the recognition of human rights in our countries?

Touring Mars · Mar 16, 2011

I believe that human rights ought to be considered as if they objectively exist (my right to life, my right to freedom etc.), and I will certainly act in a way consistent with my belief that I do possess these rights. But, the question is, do these rights really exist objectively, outwith human society, outwith established laws and moral codes, or do we just have to accept that they do in order for society to work well?

I have no doubt that a moral and just society can only be if basic human rights are assumed to exist, and that they are recognised, and that they are enforced, and that they may be protected, by force if necessary. But, I don't see how and where rights objectively exist if not simply in the minds of other people, or in the laws that we create as a society.

In other words, I'm all for calling certain rights inalienable, and I'd recommend that people believed that they objectively exist - but I'm still not convinced that they actually do... although, I have to say, I'm as likely to find out by reading the excellent debate in this thread as anywhere else!

drivehard · Mar 16, 2011

Which is part of the whole problem - there is.

So long as you retain the notion that human rights are subjective and can be dreamed up and dismissed by the whim of, usually, those in charge, you will be happy to accept that they can be bypassed and supplanted:

Wolf-M
as a product of pragmatism/compromise/utility/necessity

and you will be happy to accept that what is legal is right despite myriad, manifest examples of gross abuses of rights by laws. And so long as enough people are happy to blithely vote away rights in this manner, we will never have what is rightfully ours.

Sounds llike Christianity. Thou shalt deny subjectivity because humanity is so wicked we must invoke the wrath of god - ? or objectivity ? - hell whatever works! Nobody is happy to accept they can be bypassed or supplanted. That's the way it is and that's the way it will always be. And I would insult myself by lying to myself and saying or believing otherwise.

You may say whatever you wish. However, politics and legislated "respect" for others are irrelevant to rights. Someone who needs a law to tell them that taking stuff from someone else is wrong is someone who has little place in any society - just as much as someone who believes a law that tells them they may take stuff from someone else is right.

Now we have some faith in the integrity of humanity - the achievement of humanity as opposed to the maker!

Famine · Mar 16, 2011

drivehard
Sounds llike Christianity.

Nnnnnot really, no.

drivehard
Now we have some faith in the integrity of humanity - the achievement of humanity as opposed to the maker!

Faith is irrelevant.

FoolKiller · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
As Dotini has rightly stated, it is what the law says that matters.

It is what gets practiced, but is it really what matters as far as rights are concerned? I am sure that slaves and victims of genocide did not/do not agree that it is the law that matters.

Or would it not be reasonable to say that there are legal rights and inalienable human rights, but they don't always agree?

If you cannot see that the two are different then you should believe that you have no right to not be a slave or killed in a bout of ethnic cleansing. I for one cannot stand by and watch the government do things simply because they say they do and call it right. I also can't stand by and accept that law can be right when it can be contradictory. We see it in the name of security in the US every day where Constitutionally guaranteed legal rights are violated by security practices.

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
What did I dismiss?

The possibility of any of these theories being correct. You claim that they cannot be dismissed lightly, but you hold that they are all wrong - and you do it lightly. The only evidence you give is the existence of disagreement. That's about a lightly as you can possibly dismiss something.

Wolf-M
I would venture to say that the discussion on the philosophy of human rights is not particularly meaningful and only serves the intellectual curiosity of some Oxbridge/Harvard don. In short, it's a matter better left within the confines of the ivory tower.

Already responded to.

me
The distinction is there because it matters, not because it's some sort of "intellectual minutia". One is the function of government, the other is what government is doing. Those are very different things, and the consequence of the difference is so massive, that it establishes the legitimacy of government.

drivehard · Mar 16, 2011

FoolKiller
It is what gets practiced, but is it really what matters as far as rights are concerned?

Good question.

What gets practiced is what has been mostly ignored concerning these matters. We use everything at are disposal: law, logic, religion, etc. in order to impose a "goodness" or "civility" between each other. All thinkers come to this question with the answer ingrained in them almost instinctively and use whatever they can to fill in the blanks. Because anything is better then complete anarchy. And I think I would agree. But it appears we cannot simply ignore the consequences of us ignoring our "nature". If only because our "nature" persists. Or the divine mark Christianity has left on mankind has not washed off with soap.

I am not by any means saying this is all that matters as far as rights are concerned but when thinking over these things it is simply wrong to ignore.

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

drivehard
But it appears we cannot simply ignore the consequences of us ignoring our "nature". If only because our "nature" persists.

Who are you talking to/about? Who is ignoring human "nature" and how?

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Touring Mars
I believe that human rights ought to be considered as if they objectively exist (my right to life, my right to freedom etc.), and I will certainly act in a way consistent with my belief that I do possess these rights. But, the question is, do these rights really exist objectively, outwith human society, outwith established laws and moral codes, or do we just have to accept that they do in order for society to work well?

I have no doubt that a moral and just society can only be if basic human rights are assumed to exist, and that they are recognised, and that they are enforced, and that they may be protected, by force if necessary. But, I don't see how and where rights objectively exist if not simply in the minds of other people, or in the laws that we create as a society.

In other words, I'm all for calling certain rights inalienable, and I'd recommend that people believed that they objectively exist - but I'm still not convinced that they actually do... although, I have to say, I'm as likely to find out by reading the excellent debate in this thread as anywhere else!

If one accepts the social contract theory and takes it to its logical extreme, then the conclusion can only be that i) objectively discernible human rights exists because the constitution (one of the basic documents comprising the social contract) guarantees the right and ii) the justification of such rights lies in the doctrine of necessity.

FoolKiller
It is what gets practiced, but is it really what matters as far as rights are concerned? I am sure that slaves and victims of genocide did not/do not agree that it is the law that matters.

Or would it not be reasonable to say that there are legal rights and inalienable human rights, but they don't always agree?

If you cannot see that the two are different then you should believe that you have no right to not be a slave or killed in a bout of ethnic cleansing. I for one cannot stand by and watch the government do things simply because they say they do and call it right. I also can't stand by and accept that law can be right when it can be contradictory. We see it in the name of security in the US every day where Constitutionally guaranteed legal rights are violated by security practices.

What is legal and what is just/moral is of course different. But I'm sure the slaves and victims of genocide both prefer to rely on the law (whether national or international) for recourse instead of the philosophical notion of justice.

"Constitutionally guaranteed rights being violated" - > then it's not the problem of the higher law (the constitution) being wrong, it's the executive branch of the government violating the law!

"Government do things simply becuase they say they do and call it right" -> Seek judicial review!

As you see,

1) It is legally defined human rights that matter because only they can be enforced; and

2) Rights, by their very nature, are legal in nature - again legal as in a contractual relationship. Nonetheless actual laws are closely linked with rights - if you cannot enforce a right (by way of actual laws or rules), then can you really say you possess a "right"? It is this reason that some argue that natural rights do not exist - what you have are only freedoms.

For a more comprehensive account of this theory see my post #489

Danoff
The possibility of any of these theories being correct. You claim that they cannot be dismissed lightly, but you hold that they are all wrong - and you do it lightly. The only evidence you give is the existence of disagreement. That's about a lightly as you can possibly dismiss something.

Already responded to.

Rather holding that they are all wrong, I'm saying that they are all right in their sense and "objectively speaking" none are wrong. And while I do have my own personal opinion I dare not say I have disproven theories that are contrary to my idea.

Thus my own conclusion that there is no right or wrong answer.

Famine
They are. If they are not objective they do not objectively exist.

Again isn't that the point? My post #489 - under this theory human rights do not objectively exist but are the result of mutual undertakings between the subjects and the ruler.

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
Rather holding that they are all wrong, I'm saying that they are all right in their sense and "objectively speaking" none are wrong.

Concepts that are at odds with each other and which claim to be objective cannot both be right. Saying that they are both right is saying that they are both subjective... in otherwords they are both wrong.

Wolf-M
And while I do have my own personal opinion I dare not say I have disproven theories that are contrary to my idea.

Thus my own conclusion that there is no right or wrong answer.

Your conclusion, that there is no right answer, dismisses those who claim to have the right answer. You are claiming that you have disproven theories that are contrary to your ideas. You cannot conclude that a correct answer does not exist without claiming that everyone who claims that a correct answer exists is wrong.

Wolf-M · Mar 16, 2011

Danoff
Concepts that are at odds with each other and which claim to be objective cannot both be right. Saying that they are both right is saying that they are both subjective... in otherwords they are both wrong.

Your conclusion, that there is no right answer, dismisses those who claim to have the right answer. You are claiming that you have disproven theories that are contrary to your ideas. You cannot conclude that a correct answer does not exist without claiming that everyone who claims that a correct answer exists is wrong.

They are all right in their own sense. They are the various justifications given for recognising human rights. One can view a justification as superior to the other, but one can never say that one justification is objectively proven to be the right answer whereas the others are objectively wrong.

That's my point.

And when I say there is no right answer, I'm referring to the various theories of human rights. I'm not referring to our objective - subjective argument. To that extent yes I am dismissing those who claim that there must be an objectively discernible correct answer. There cannot be.

Again, see my post #489

Famine · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
Again isn't that the point? My post #489 - under this theory human rights do not objectively exist but are the result of mutual undertakings between the subjects and the ruler.

As I say, because you cling to the notion that laws make rights and refuse to acknowledge the existence of any objective rights (which are immediately apparent from logic), this is satisfactory to you and renders any discussion with you meaningless and without hope. As Foolkiller quite rightly pointed out:

Foolkiller
If you cannot see that the two are different then you should believe that you have no right to not be a slave or killed in a bout of ethnic cleansing.

You dismissed this by citing law - failing to recognise that both acts have been (and continue to be) carried out with the support of law.

I understand why you use the law as a crutch - it's a major part of your life and you're required to know it and embrace it. The problem is that law can be unjust (rights cannot), law can be changed at whim (rights cannot) and law can be used to obfuscate (where rights are clear).

I doubt you would concede that being killed due to your belief system, being forced to work for another without reward or being forced into sexual intercourse against your will are always a breach of rights but not always a breach of law - because that would require recognition that objective rights exist beyond subjective laws.

drivehard · Mar 16, 2011

Danoff
Who are you talking to/about? Who is ignoring human "nature" and how?

Is this what really matters?

Behind of every creature on earth lies the instinct for self-preservation. Even humans have this. Anything that conflicts with this is ultimately superficial.

Dotini · Mar 16, 2011

drivehard
Behind of every creature on earth lies the instinct for self-preservation.

Drivehard, as a kart racer and former mountain climber, I fully agree with your remark. But whenever I post in this thread, I invariably come away my ears boxed, my teeth kicked in and my liver slashed. Accordingly, my instinct is to flee.

drivehard · Mar 16, 2011

Dotini
Drivehard, as a kart racer and former mountain climber, I fully agree with your remark. But whenever I post in this thread, I invariably come away my ears boxed, my teeth kicked in and my liver slashed. Accordingly, my instinct is to flee.

I get that as well. Until I'm convinced or realize otherwise it will be part of my daily routine. I will wake up at the same time, measure my toothpaste with a scale, eat the same damn thing and smack myself upside the head with a modus tollem!

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

Wolf-M
They are all right in their own sense.

But they are incompatible. What you mean to say is that they are all based on similarly poor subjective reasoning that you refuse to accept. They are all wrong.

Of course you can't agree with that statement because if you did you would admit that you have dismissed the reasoning of these people - which you don't want to do because you've go so far out of your way to criticize me for doing the same thing.

Here's what I want from you. I want you to admit that you have dismissed their claims, and retract your statements about it being arrogant or ridiculous for me to also dismiss their claims (based on pretty much the same reasoning I might add).

me
Who are you talking to/about?

drivehard
Is this what really matters?

Behind of every creature on earth lies the instinct for self-preservation. Even humans have this. Anything that conflicts with this is ultimately superficial.

Translation: Drivehard is talking to himself.

drivehard · Mar 16, 2011

Danoff
But they are incompatible. What you mean to say is that they are all based on similarly poor subjective reasoning that you refuse to accept. They are all wrong.

Of course you can't agree with that statement because if you did you would admit that you have dismissed the reasoning of these people - which you don't want to do because you've go so far out of your way to criticize me for doing the same thing.

Here's what I want from you. I want you to admit that you have dismissed their claims, and retract your statements about it being arrogant or ridiculous for me to also dismiss their claims (based on pretty much the same reasoning I might add).

Translation: Drivehard is talking to himself.

Better I talk to and think for myself then tyrannically dictate logic from the text book.

Danoff · Mar 16, 2011

drivehard
Better I talk to and think for myself then tyrannically dictate logic from the text book.

Even your little comeback quip doesn't make any sense. Logic exists independently of interpretation. Its application is as "tyrannical" as the laws of physics. Either 1+1=3 or it doesn't. There is no "I feel like it does" about it. That was the WHOLE POINT with modus tollem/modus ponens/de morgan's theorem etc. etc.

You made the statement "all is subjective". I replied by showing you things that are not subjective - like logic - something "tyrannical" that you can find in a textbook. I suppose you thought your grade school arithmetic teacher was an evil dictator.

drivehard · Mar 17, 2011

Some people present logic on a tray. You shoot it from a gun. Which dosen't make it more true if that's what you were assuming. Infact the force with which the argument is presented is often the arguments or the thinkers major flaw. If somebody insists something is absolute and has no empirical data to prove it so, it only follows that ones psychology comes into question, like a religious fanatic. This is precisely the point where I would insist you ask yourself if you didn't reach your conclusion with faith. Philosophy is not an exact science and math fails to completely define it.

Human Rights

Don't be a fool.

Wolf on wheels

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Wolf on wheels

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Wolf on wheels

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Wolf on wheels

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Wolf on wheels

ツーリング マルス

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Don't be a fool.

Wolf on wheels

Wolf on wheels

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Similar threads

ツーリングマルス