Question for Jackson Larose

[apehead]

@filc

I’ll get to the ethics when you can clarify the ethics definition I have above though it may not be until tomorrow evening, but I have to be 100% sure on your definition of ethics.

I’ll take a page from your book, and tell you to go back and re-read. A few pages a go I posted a “practical” definition of ethics (because the Wiki had too many word for you).

[apehead]

@wilderness

Angurse, I suggested to him back at almost post one between him and I to understand the difference between semantics and concepts (what a person means), but you’re still here explaining it to him about 30 pages later that include at least three threads later. Does that mean anything to you? It does to me.

And when we tried to figure out what each other meant, it turned out you were contradicting yourself. I don’t know how that proves i don’t understand the distinction.

[apehead]

@wilderness

Wait until he says he’s trying to rid the world of ideas and to abandon all concepts.

Did I say the world, or myself? Or either, come to think of it. The mud-slinging is getting really heavy around here.

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Wait until he says he’s trying to rid the world of ideas and to abandon all concepts.

Did I say the world, or myself? Or either, come to think of it. The mud-slinging is getting really heavy around here.

Is that a concept that you type, “world” or “myself” or did you really come to think of it. Is that really mud being slung? Or simply your concept of mud-slinging that you have yet to abandon? but don’t try to give me the concept over a forum. wouldn’t want you to not meet your goal that you value and find morally preferred as it is something you like.

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Angurse, I suggested to him back at almost post one between him and I to understand the difference between semantics and concepts (what a person means), but you’re still here explaining it to him about 30 pages later that include at least three threads later. Does that mean anything to you? It does to me.

And when we tried to figure out what each other meant, it turned out you were contradicting yourself. I don’t know how that proves i don’t understand the distinction.

No. I didn’t contradict myself. You simply think I did because that’s your thought.

[apehead]

@wilderness

Is that a concept that you type, “world” or “myself” or did you really come to think of it. Is that really mud being slung? Or simply your concept of mud-slinging that you have yet to abandon? but don’t try to give me the concept over a forum. wouldn’t want you to not meet your goal that you value and find morally preferred as it is something you like.

Thanks for taking the pressure off.

[apehead]

@wilderness

No. I didn’t contradict myself. You simply think I did because that’s your thought.

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Because I said in a previous post, too, that I can possess a rake if it is in my shed (which means I don’t physically possess it, I don’t physically have it in my hands - it’s in the shed).

Again, I would argue that it is still in your possession, since you have restrained it in your shed. You did not just leave it in the street, or across state lines.

@wilderness

So even if another person has the rake I still possess it just like I possess the rake if it is in the shed and out of my physical hands.

So two individuals can possess the rake simultaneously? Another acting individual physically possessing a rake is equivalent to putting it in a shed?

@wilderness

The other person now possesses the rake in their hands. We both possess the rake at this point. I possess it because it is in their hands which is the same as saying I possess it cause it is in the shed.

I don’t see how this makes any sense. Is the rake non-rival?

@wilderness

In both instances I don’t physically possess the rake but I have (possess) a rake.

I don’t understand how this works using your chosen definition of the word own, or possess.

@wilderness

and it’s easy to understand that take back incorporates control.

Why is this so obvious? To me the phrase “take back” implies that you have lost control of said object at some point.

Control:

1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
3. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.

4. To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water

@wilderness

It is a goal of mine to walk to the rake that is in the hands of another person and take it back

“Taking it back” is an ethical action. Even though you lost physical control of it, you believe you still have a right to regain control of the object.

@wilderness

Plus I like unique experiences full of new splashy, colorful insights, not that you don’t offer that but the discussion has dried up and I could simply start linking you back to previous posts we had already agreed upon when it had to these definitions.

Your argument is terrible. First, let’s look at these agreed upon definitons:

@Jackson LaRose

If by you “own” you are simply saying “physically posses”, than I would agree that the use is non-ethical.

@wilderness

That’s what I mean. Great. We agree.

OK, sounds reasonable, so now where are you pulling this garbage from?

@wilderness

Yet to all of these in the abstract sense, yes, I do possess a rake, control (I don’t know if that is possible abstractly), and I do own a rake - all in the abstract sense

You seem to be directly contradicting yourself here. And then it gets even more egregious:

@wilderness

So even if another person has the rake I still possess it just like I possess the rake if it is in the shed and out of my physical hands. The other person now possesses the rake in their hands. We both possess the rake at this point.

This makes absolutely no sense outside of an ethical framework, based on your own definition of terms. How can the same rake be two places at once?

@wilderness

me does matter. Jackson does matter. filc does matter.

This is an ethical statement of the highest order.

@wilderness

The rake was taken from me. I go take the rake back. Why did I take the rake back? Because it is my rake.

Why is it still yours?

@wilderness

It doesn’t need to be physically possessed to be my rake.

According to your own definition of “own”, it does.

@wilderness

I identify with the rake as being mine.

That seems completely arbitrary without some ethical reasoning.

@wilderness

I own it.

Not by your definition, you don’t.

@wilderness

It is in the shed or in the hands of another person.

Again, I don’t see how these two equate. Is the shed an acting entity?

@wilderness

Have fun.

Good Luck.

Just so we’re up to speed.

[wilderness]

There are no contradictions of mine in there, simply your conceptual misunderstanding because I could go through your responses and point out how much you totally didn’t get what I was saying within the context of a few pages in a thread, but how could you conceive anything I said in the first place unless you’ve abandoned your preference to abandon all concepts all of a sudden.

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

I’m glad to see you are so eager to jump to conclusions, but if you check out the thread all this spilt out from, you’d see I explained it rather clearly already.

Not really.

“I defined it in the other thread from an economic standoint, as Wilderness and I were attempting to show in another thread.”

'It’s like the difference between a match and a fire. You use one (property rights), to conclude the other (which property you own)."

Here’s the thread:

Filc: What do you mean by possession

JL: Stuff you have, without rights

Filc: Thats what I mean by property

JL: No, property, means its inseparable from rights

Filc: But that is what I meant by property, no rights, we’re on the same page

JL: No, your using the term property wrong

(And on and on)

Really, who care about what anyone means?

[apehead]

@wilderness

There are no contradictions of mine in there, simply your conceptual misunderstanding because I could go through your responses and point out how much you totally didn’t get what I was saying within the context of a few pages in a thread, but how could you conceive anything I said in the first place unless you’ve abandoned your preference to abandon all concepts all of a sudden.

OK, well don’t bother then.

[apehead]

@Angurse

Really, who care about what anyone means?

I dunno. To effectively communicate, I thought it was important.

@Angurse

Not really

Good point.

[EternalSanction]

@Esuric

@Jackson LaRose

What I’m saying is that property is an ethical term, whereas possession is not. Hence, I feel that one does not necessarily have to consider possessions property.

You sound like you’re into Nietzsche. Only a Nietzschean would try to eliminate the word “property” from the English language in order to prove that ethics don’t exist.

I would say that having a constructive conversation with a Nietzschean would be easier than with a Stirnerite. In fact, Nietzscheans usually follow a kind of subjective ethics, unless they just completely fail to understand Nietzsche’s actual meaning.

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

I dunno. To effectively communicate, I thought it was important.

Doesn’t look like it…

@Jackson LaRose

Good point.

Now, lets see octopi, put links to colour within their colours.

[Angurse]

@Justin Spahr-Summers

I would say that having a constructive conversation with a Nietzschean would be easier than with a Stirnerite. In fact, Nietzscheans usually follow a kind of subjective ethics, unless they just completely fail to understand Nietzsche’s actual meaning.

I’m not sure about that, Stirner was very straight forward and didn’t play semantic games (used the term property frequently). Nietzche has layers and layers of different possible meanings… leading to the point where you have to read experts comment on experts comment on the man.

[apehead]

@Angurse

Doesn’t look like it…

I don’t really understand what this link infers.

@Angurse

Now, lets see octopi, put links to colour within their colours.

I’m sure there are pros and cons to both form of communication. Maybe they could be used in conjunction.

[Angurse]

Non-effective communication.

[apehead]

@Angurse

Non-effective communication.

Why are you pointing it out?

[Angurse]

You said it was important, it doesn’t look as if you meant it though.

[apehead]

@Angurse

You said it was important

To effectively communicate?

@Angurse

it doesn’t look as if you meant it though.

why not?

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

To effectively communicate?

Yes. “To effectively communicate, I thought it was important.” Unless I’ve misread.

@Jackson LaRose

why not?

See prior posts above.