What are you reading?

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3086
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Number 6 » 17 Aug 2019, 19:53

Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 18:37
Hugh Akston wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 18:17
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 17:36
But if you ain't got anything better, and you don't, whadda we talking about?
We're talking about fundamental flaws in the myths underlying the social institutions that fail in their ostensible functions. It's either naive or intellectually dishonest to reject critiques of those myths and institutions because the critic doesn't have a fully-formed alternative ready to go out of the box, because that's not how anything works.
I want a right to free speech. I want the right to say things you don't like. Natural rights gets me there.
That's reasoning backwards, though. While I also would like a right to free speech, as well as a lot of others, starting with the conclusion you want and accepting arguments because they get you there....that's just not how careful, intellectually honest reasoning is done. My point was the same one made by several others here. Natural rights arguments fail because they can't be justified ontologically while making an entirely ontologial claim. Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.

ETA: Several thinkers have made solid attempts to fuse utilitarian and quasi-ontological arguments, including Rand. Of them, Narveson's (The Libertarian Idea) strikes me as the closest to convincing.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26974
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Warren » 17 Aug 2019, 19:58

Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3086
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Number 6 » 17 Aug 2019, 20:01

Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:58
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.

*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26974
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Warren » 17 Aug 2019, 20:18

Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:01
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:58
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.

*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3086
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Number 6 » 17 Aug 2019, 20:24

Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:18
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:01
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:58
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.

*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
And all your shouting about natural rights will only be background noise to them as they drag you to the camp.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26974
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Warren » 17 Aug 2019, 20:32

True dat. But that doesn't make them right.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13666
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Eric the .5b » 17 Aug 2019, 21:24

Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:24
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:18
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:01
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:58
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.

*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
And all your shouting about natural rights will only be background noise to them as they drag you to the camp.
So would any other argument. It's all just noise unless you can shoot them in the face, and they can probably get more guns.

But then, every society more complicated than "I hold the gun on you, and you dig" runs on mythology. As does every ethical system, period.

Ultimately, every ethical system is a lot of work to cover up that people were working backwards to desired end states. We just have generations of true believers afterward who think it's the other way around.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3086
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Number 6 » 17 Aug 2019, 22:01

Eric the .5b wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 21:24
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:24
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:18
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 20:01
Warren wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:58
Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.

*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
And all your shouting about natural rights will only be background noise to them as they drag you to the camp.
So would any other argument. It's all just noise unless you can shoot them in the face, and they can probably get more guns.

But then, every society more complicated than "I hold the gun on you, and you dig" runs on mythology. As does every ethical system, period.

Ultimately, every ethical system is a lot of work to cover up that people were working backwards to desired end states. We just have generations of true believers afterward who think it's the other way around.
We don't disagree.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24207
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: What are you reading?

Post by JasonL » 17 Aug 2019, 23:09

Meaning in the human sense is constructed not derived or even discovered. The nature of meaning is facts contextualized and given narrative significance by a set of values - hopefully values with some kind of internal consistency.

Also I’m drunk so ... I kinda don’t remember why I said that. Pretty sure I believe it in sober light., but, hmm...

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3086
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Number 6 » 17 Aug 2019, 23:41

JasonL wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 23:09
Meaning in the human sense is constructed not derived or even discovered. The nature of meaning is facts contextualized and given narrative significance by a set of values - hopefully values with some kind of internal consistency.

Also I’m drunk so ... I kinda don’t remember why I said that. Pretty sure I believe it in sober light., but, hmm...
I want to drink with you.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26974
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: What are you reading?

Post by Warren » 17 Aug 2019, 23:54

Number 6 wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 23:41
JasonL wrote:
17 Aug 2019, 23:09
Meaning in the human sense is constructed not derived or even discovered. The nature of meaning is facts contextualized and given narrative significance by a set of values - hopefully values with some kind of internal consistency.

Also I’m drunk so ... I kinda don’t remember why I said that. Pretty sure I believe it in sober light., but, hmm...
I want to drink with you.
I've drank with both of you. And you do.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests