Oh, I see. Seems like a fair question to ask…
Yeah, and the answer was provided in the quote already given.
Conza88, which part of that quote gave me instructions for verifying or falsifying one or more of the different natural rights theories, so that I can compare them and determine which is the most likely to be true? If it contains no such thing, then the answer was not provided.
You didn’t explicitly ask for instructions.
“who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind”
Is what I was getting at. Guess it wasn’t clear, I accidently left out the top bit of the quote;
“One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man’s reason. Man’s reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man’s nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out! It is as if one man were to assert that the nature of copper were open to rational investigation and a critic were to challenge him to “prove” this immediately by setting forth on the spot all the laws that have been discovered about copper.”
Do folks object that mankind has a nature?
Don’t you know that a society is an aggregrate of individuals? When I first used the word society in that possible world I even gave you the definition. (1) You don’t realize that a society is an aggregrate of individuals yourself (2) You do not read my posts carefully
I don’t know what you’re asking.
This is very difficult to discuss with you because of (1) and (2) above, and (1). Also, you don’t know what certain philosophical terms mean, which would be perfectly fine if we were not in the ca. 100th post in which I’ve used these same terms with you and now, I mean, now by Scott, you ask me what these terms mean and what they have to do with certain things. This is uncanny for any one person in my opinion. And no these are not poems, this is philosophy. Are you being serious or are you just pulling my chain this whole this time?
I will await for answers to the above questions because I have been using these same words for so long this is quite… I can’t even think of a word… After all of this time can you not see why I react this way? I don’t know if you are trying to waste my time on purpose because you know I am dedicated to philosophy. Please clarifiy the above if this is to continue.
- Thank You.
I thought I answered this for you. Did you get back to me? I forget.
Exactly what I have been saying. I have also been saying of recent since it appears, in my opinion, that some posters like to pick the brains of others quite often instead of using their reason, I have been defining natural law as thinking for one self or learning how to fish on your own.
It is not a comment that is to stir offense. Quite the opposite. It is a comment of self-reliance in which individual responsibility is not to be forgotten. At essence it is what the idea of a society without a gov’t relies upon, some people that can think on their own. I say this with all the love I possess which is a lot.
That’s very true Marko. Very true.
Your ‘private, internal world’ are also real objects. They are precisely states and distributions of the pattern-machine that makes up consciousness. You are the case of being a particular pattern machine.
That was my point, yes.
Well said. I have been saying the same thing countless times. It’s realism. So our paths cross again. Therefore, I really don’t see what all the divisional attempts are by some people.
because your notion of ‘natural law’ is either nonsense or irrelevant.
Yes, and aggregates do not act, which means they don’t choose or prefer either.
I didn’t ask you these questions before, because you had never used “negative demonstration” or “refute” in those particular ways before.
React in what way? What aspect of you reaction are you referring to?
People as diverse as trulib, Esuric, and ERO have expressed that these conversations have clarified things for them. So no, I don’t think this has been a waste of time, nor do I want it to be.
It’s impossible to write anything without using reason. And isn’t the whole purpose of a forum to enable thinkers to “pick the brains of others”?
No they aren’t. Wow assertions are fun!
Oh is that all we are? Wow I guess all the people working on Strong AI are just wasting their time all we needed was a regular expression.
So what? I think your notions are nonsense and irrelevant.
tit-for-tat
1 - So you don’t think there is such a thing as individuals cooperating with each other. No wonder.
2 - I’ve used negative demonstration countless times before. Sorry you don’t understand. Wish I could help.
3 - It’s definitely clarified for me that you don’t appreciate cooperation. You won’t even recognize a society as your own words clearly state.
Not when it gets to the point where some people fail to think on their own, and provide something meaningful. I mean you don’t even think people can manage to cooperate.
Individuals do cooperate. And cooperation is an action. That only implies that individuals act (cooperate), not that societies act.