From: Jerry Mitchell (jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Fri Sep 14 2001 - 00:36:57 MDT
> >Lovely, wave been reduced to the insane point now where our
> philosophy is to
> >disavow philosophy. Our ideals are that we hold no ideals.
> The philosophy
> >that philosophy doesn't matter could only be grasped by
> brutes. They focus
> >on the concrete and forgo the conceptual level. Exactly how
> do you define
> >human life as a value without a philosophy when its
> philosophy that tells
> >you what IS in fact valuable? You cannot escape the
> requirement to possess
> >one... what you can do is default on your requirement for a rational
> >philosophy and just drift where the winds take you. This is the most
> >commonly chosen path. This is why someone with a integrated
> view of reality
> >seems so alien or dare I use the word "radical".
>
> Ideas that matter more than people are not worth holding.
> Philosophies that
> let you consider people en-masse and minimise their humanity lead to
> atrocities. The destruction of the poor souls at the WTC
> shows that clearly.
Any philosophy that defaults on defending itself deserve what it gets. If
the Mongol hordes are breaking down your door and you DONT consider them
en-masse, guess what comes next.
>
> I don't have convictions in the normal sense.
Agreed. that takes an integrated view of existence.
> For me, life is valued above all else, next most important to me is
> intelligence, and the third thing I hold dear is knowledge.
> I start from these simply because it seems to me the most
> logical thing to
> do.
And no clue why or how to explain "why" you hold certain things in a
particular value, or discover the roots of these thoughts, or in fact check
their validity (not saying they aren't noble, but WHY is the question).
What's logical? Is there truth? What entails a fact? Your getting
dangerously close if you just asked a few more questions to the source of
these lines of thinking.
> I don't believe in moral absolutes. I see punishment as sometimes
> "working", but other times counterproductive. Everything is
> evaluated in my
> eyes by how it can enhance life, intelligence, and knowledge.
How can you judge anything as good or bad when you just said there are no
absolutes? In the spectrum of morality, what's wrong with occupying the
"right" side.... Who benefits from a compromise between evil and good?
(Hint, the good is already good)
> Calling for
> senseless revenge pretty clearly runs counter to all three. I
> won't repeat
> the reasons. [sigh]
>
The inability to tell the difference between revenge and removal of a threat
is only possible without clear definitions, clarity of action, and intense
scrutiny of the facts. If someone rapes your beloved and then comes back for
more, you are most certainly protecting your loved ones as you should when
you kill them. If he posed no further threat and we still wanted to kill
him, then you could classify it as revenge, although I would call it justice
myself.
>
> >This isn't at all what history has shown. Where were all the
> terrorist from
> >Japan, Germany, or Korea? Historical precedence says that
> when a country is
> >beaten down, for the most part, they shut up.
>
> True, but you are wanting to fight a totally different beast
> here. This is
> no simple, centralised monster. This something that if you
> lop off one head
> many more spring up to take its place. A different tactic is
> called for.
> This is more like the war with Vietnam.
>
So where were the Vietnamese terrorist then?
>
> >Damn strait I'm a fanatic for liberty and proud of it. Ill
> fight to the
> >death to preserve it as well, for myself and my children.
>
> Unfortunately it looks like you will just be guaranteeing that your
> children will have to deal with the fallout from your desire
> for simple
> revenge.
See above for a description for the difference between revenge and justice
or protection. Without me acting, they most certainly WILL have to deal with
them.
> >I'm sure everyone here that's spouting against violence
> feels morally smug
> >thinking there's never a time for violence.
>
> Of course there is a time for violence. But it is just not *always*
> productive, and certainly shouldn't be the standard kneejerk response.
Remember, you don't have a philosophy so your in no position to determine
anything. Without values and convictions as to what is a value, your once
again lost in a moral morass incable of determining right from wrong.
> >I for one think that people that
> >don't have the strength to define a philosophy and defend it
> are moral
> >cowards. I for one don't agree with the philosophy of the
> middle east, but
> >at least they have the balls to have one. There is no way
> that man can exist
> >without an integrated world view... a philosophy. This moral
> agnosticism is
> >worse by far though. At least their view has a relationship
> to reality...
> >their wrong. The fog of the unknowable ether inhabited by
> the anti-idealist
> >has no relationship to anything. Its free to twist, contort,
> and dispense
> >with its views at whim. The misguided Arabs will eventually have the
> >possibility to correct their thinking by correlating it with
> reality, there
> >will be no such chance for the anti-idealist.
>
> Oh great. Calling for thoughtful, measured response that
> takes into account
> past and future actions makes me more reprehensible than the
> dumb shits who
> altered your skyline so dramatically by succumbing to the
> illusion of quick
> fix via violence. :-(
>
> Jerry, it feels strange to hear you aligning yourself with
> the fanatics
> while denouncing someone who would like to find long-term
> solutions to this
> cycle of spilt blood.
>
> - Miriam
Oh I never said they weren't dangerous, but they haven't been exposed to a
rational philosophy and therefore at least have an excuse as to their
ignorance. Its those great thinkers that have heard of it and turned it down
that are worse. The anti-idealist is the anti-reason, because reason demands
that you understand reality and its nature. The anti-idealist has chosen to
ignore their own reason and go off into the fields of their own internal
murky whims and desires without the slightest clue why the world isn't
working the way they demand. Just drop philosophy, drop reason, drop this
crazy notion there is in fact a correct way to live in this world.
Just sit back, sing cum-by-ya and everything will be peachy.
I have no dought that you want to find the answers, but if you cant even
validate you own ideas, and rely on some instinct that just "tells you that
its seems logical", then I don't know how you'll answer the hordes coming
over the walls when they point to you and say your wrong. If you took a
fraction of the time verifying the logical consistency of your belief
structure, making sure its consistent, complete, and rational, as you
probably do your normal work issues, and you'll be able to see there IS a
structure to reality. Man must produce to live, he must think to produce, he
must choose to think... Its all within the grasp of any human if they really
want to try and look at it. If your really concerned for the future, you'll
help man understand reality, not tell him that its unknowable, that
absolutes aren't real, that morality is fiction. Undermining his mind is in
fact more evil then any bomb, its a guarantee at his final destruction.
Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:37 MST