He might’ve meant that eathquakes are the results of processes (environment, earth, etc.), as well as whatever initiates an earthquake, & that acting purposley might instead be humans constantly reacting to all sorts of stimuli, circumstances, systems (biological, etc,), & previous events (i.e. the brain reacting to the inital beating of the body’s heart).
Acting purposley ends when the heart stops beating. So could the heart, which is nothing more than a biological organ that basically helps sustain our own body’s functions, be the source of acting purposley? Or shall we start talking about souls instead?
If so, then choosing is a mere by-product of our physical bodies operating. I realize some people around here might hate neurophilosophy, but I don’t think it should be entirely ignored.
It should be entirely ignored. It’s nonsense. The fact that people act purposefully is axiomatic; it is true by definition. Now whether purposeful action is caused by the soul, or because of complicated chemical stimuli and reactions, is another question entirely. If he wants to say that it’s the latter, then he needs to make his case, and actually provide proof. Which chemical or set of chemicals is causing me to type this right now? How come the chemicals didn’t cause me to type something else?
‘or in other words’ doesn’t work. They are not mutually exclusive. Your brain is evolved, it is part of nature, there are causal chains there like in geology. This does not mean that there is no ‘agency’. Do you deny that you posted with any purpose? Do you think it makes sense to verbally challenge a rock or tsunami to ‘prove something’ ?
What is “agency” other than a term for saying my actions are separate from the stimulus and genetics and chemicals that go into and are part of my brain and body?
Your edit has you supposing that earthquakes have ‘goals’. That’s quite anthropomorphic of you
No, I’ve actually said that “goals” and the time that an earthquake occurs are ‘picked’ by the same fundamental processes, which is to say the strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravitational and what ever other forces there are out there. It’s just matter’s of scale and complexity that give rise to the illusion.
It should be entirely ignored. It’s nonsense. The fact that people act purposefully is axiomatic; it is true by definition. Now whether purposeful action is caused by the soul, or because of complicated chemical stimuli and reactions, is another question entirely. If he wants to say that it’s the latter, then he needs to make his case, and actually provide proof. Which chemical or set of chemicals is causing me to type this right now?
I was putting it in contrast with an earthquake, since we were discussing natural occurrences. He stated something was wrong but not the other even though the two were of vastly different scales of the same consequence. I specifically stated that by purpose, I did not mean having goals and acting on them. That’s not the way he was using it. The way he was using it was as if nature wasn’t the cause of those goals, but rather some mystical “me” who picked it, that wasn’t related to nature. By the way, we have evidence to suggest that the brain’s “agency” really is caused by chemicals. We have products based on that entire idea (which is the real test of any theory). Drugs can have very serious consequences on “agency”. Drugs are chemicals. So the onus is on those who say goals and actions aren’t based on chemicals in the brain.
My chemicals think that this is an idiotic position, and they’re forcing me to say this. My chemicals also demand solid proof; i.e., you need to validate your materialist nonsense. Furthermore, my chemicals tell me that other chemicals can affect my perception, but that that doesn’t necessarily mean that my actions and consciousness are entirely determined by the interaction of purely physical stimuli.
thank you for your reading suggestions and explanations. Still, I feel that pointing out a thing or two about the nature of natural rights is relevant to the topic at hand, given that your theorizing appears to be influenced to a large degree by this philosophy, isn’t it?
In essense, you’re saying that some part of your decision-making process behaves above the law of cause and effect. Which basically means you believe that some part of your body behaves outside the laws of the physical world.
I would love to know, Esuric, how that is possible.
I believe he’s saying that the will is the cause of action while others are trying to say that action (and perhaps even will) is an effect of chemicals being shot out of neruons.
Great, thoughtful responses. I appreciate your intellectual curiosity in knowing what my theory is instead of making ad hoc assumptions as some other posters are doing. And I am very curious as to what your theory is, so, this is moving along in a very thoughful manner in order for me to discover what your theory is.
In formulating my theory above in the previous posts I was incorporating both sides in the conflict. My theory involves the conflict and how the two parties are dealing with the conflict. That’s why I included what Person-A possibly is thinking and what Person-B is possibly thinking. (I changed the names of the two people involved). Person-A has made a claim sometimes it is ok to steal. Person-B has made a claim that it is never ok to steal. Since A and B are making this claim what is the resolution?
Also, since it doesn’t matter whether Person-A thinks of ethics as an objective or subjective discipline then the same goes Person-B. Do you find this last statement to be true or false according to your theory.
Oh. I’m glad you answered this because I was thinking of something else. I was thinking of comparing how Person-A and Person-B will find a resolution to their different claims. I wasn’t, yet, saying who is correct or incorrect. I was thinking of ‘compare’ in relation to let’s compare A and B and what A and B will do. I was thinking that way.
That is my theory, yes.
This is a difficult question. Could it not be posed that a statist is living a fantasy which implies why some of the problems happen in the external world the way they do because a statist is trying to live out the impossible dream and therefore has a blind spot and plenty of excuses to along with ‘why’ their way isn’t working and their excuses possibly have nothing to do with their theory? The attribute the failings to an act of God (I believe in God but sometimes people, I believe, blame God instead of blaming themselves), act of nature, or they say ‘it’s reality’ and don’t inquire any further. There might be other attributes they are blaming certain other events instead of doing some intropection and evaluating their own theory which might actually be the fault. I don’t want to write too much here. And I don’t know if I fully answer what you were saying above, in fact, I don’t think I did. But I wanted to say this first because these are some of the assumptions I hold before I may give what you said above here it’s proper attention.
I think it is very important to go over the assumptions that each person possess during a discussion especially one as complicated as this one that is trying to mull through these volumuous subjects, ie. law, politics, statism, epistemology, etc… I thank you for your patience as I find this subject to be very intriguing.
This is superb. You are reaching into deeper assumptions. I love it.
Would you say that the question of, meaning, coming to the agreement of, not the agreement itself, but the process before finalizing the agreement as to whether “we ought to adopt ‘maintain society’ as a goal” relates to a deeper question as to if any one single human will always end up connecting or making a relation with another person therefore society. Is this a question of “Are humans social animals?” I am assuming you would say yes, but I don’t want to go any further until I know for sure. Yet even knowing that I don’t know if I can make the leap to whether “we ought to adopt ‘maintain society’”. There might be a few more assumptions before we get to that. I will see. I’m not sure, but you’re relating an answer to the above question will help in knowing.
I think our discussion is going great thus far and I don’t think we need to as of yet parse what you say here. I say that because it appears what you say here might be eventually uncovered by what we are talking about up above this comment of yours. We’re getting there.
Thank you I. Ryan. It is amazing how some posters who preach subjective preferences do not actually apply or see them in others. It is afterall my theory as praxeologically I can only speak of my knowledge. I am happy you understand what I am saying. I enjoy your well-mannered and very effective ways of communicating with others. You are truly a model to be exampled in regards to that.
I think you might underestimate yourself here. I like moral realism and use objective ethics because they are my subjective preferences and are my subjective ethics.
There are assumptions that need vetted because I adhere to what I. Ryan is saying and to what you are saying due to the underlying assumptions are being related with different terms, but the meaningful substance from which these different terms originate are very similar. Those with the patience to delve into these assumptions instead of continually assuming what the other person means will be able to pull themselves out of what appears to be samsara and actually enjoy a more pleasant experience with each other. The assumptions not queried are making it appear the other poster is in conflict with your position but once those assumptions are investigated and vetted out then that initial appearance may be seen in hindsight as only an illusion.
I’m willing to engage if you are. I would suggest private messaging at first because the brew-ha-ha in the forum sometimes makes it a bit unpleasant to reach into the depths I believe we need to go to get to the bottom of this.
I think you need to start proving that people are “naive” or that they don’t read anything outside of the Mises Institute. Just because you appear to not understand other posters doesn’t make you correct by default. I agree with some of your underlying assumptions but in my opinion you haven’t taken it to the next level. Yes. It is only my opinion and I am not trying to prove what I am saying to you right now. Since you demonstrate the ill-patience to have a long, if necessary, thoughtful discussion in understanding some other posters without you instantly reverting on nearly each post of yours to a ‘your naive’ assertion, then my insight into this is based on your actual performance. I think being able to have a discussion with other posters without making ones conclusions absolute is a sign of being willing to actually know what other posters mean instead of only relying on what you think they mean.
Of course, I would happen to think it depends on what you mean by “moral”, I’ll explain and provide what I think.
To me moral is defined as determining what is good and what is bad. When you say above what I underlined, to me that is a moral statement. I am not saying you think it is a moral statement. I am not even saying you are wrong. You possess your own knowledge as to what moral is or is not. But for me to state what is better, better is grammatically the comparative of good. And what you value as better is a comparative of what is good and for me that is to ask: what is good? Now this is my theory so I am only asserting how I currently understand my theory. Because you don’t call that a moral statement doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong. And it doesn’t mean I am necessarily right in giving my interpretation. It is simply a matter of understanding what you mean and I am trying to relate to you how I interpret those terms and what I mean. At this point, it is just trying to communicate effectively. Not making judgements as to who is right or wrong in their interpretations.
Ah, I’m relaxing and enjoying this blue sky day here…
I am not infatuated with classical Greek philosophy. Prove to everybody that this is true. Prove that it is true that I have not read outside of Classical Greek philosophy and prove that it is true that I have not read any contemporary philosophy. Prove to everybody, since you claim it is true, that you have visited my large library here and the boxes I have in other locations other than my home due to the quantity is too much to fit here for the time being until further arrangements are made.
That is an excellent point. But my theorizing isn’t only influenced by natural rights theorists, but you poigantly said “to a large degree”, but how to begin to demarcate the range of ordinal ‘largeness’ would be difficult if not impossible. My theorizing is more specificaly my way of thinking and therefore living. I believe the underlying assumptions would first need to be hashed out before we possibly get anywhere near is/ought gap or rights, etc…
thank you for responding back. I really wasn’t trying to cut you off from the discussion. I felt that you were giving some general notions that are a long way off from what I intended this thread to delve into. I think the thread is going somewhat well, but I’m trying to keep the target in focus. This post of yours here does just that. It is on target into getting into the underlying assumptions.
I might be relating what you are, but I think a discussion with me first would determine if that is true or not. I don’t think, since we’ve never discussed before at least I don’t think we have, it is warranted of you to assume what I am saying without first asking me. I consider doing the same to you, and I will not assume what you think.
If law is just a matter of behavior that establishes an environment in which goals are more easily obtained then why listen to law when your goals aren’t in tune with it?
There’s no reason to, other than fear of reprisals.
So you compare a tsunami to a human being and make a claim about morality? “Its wrong to objectively shoot someone” is a veiled conditional statement. If my subjective goal is to have a world of non violence, is it objectively true that its wrong to shoot someone? Yes it is.
But then the phrase ‘natural rights’ does have a certain established meaning so when you name it that way is it really that unreasonable to assume things about it?