Why is coercion bad?

[tunk]

Well, they’re categorized however they happen to be categorized. Language seems to be the main way in which things are categorized. We refer to things with commonly used words. It’s irrelevant for my argument, since the only category that I use is “man”. It’s not that I don’t consider “plant” a category, it’s just that it’s not relevant to my case and I have little to say about it.

“The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness.”

Yeah, but removing uneasiness is a merely formal motivation. The content of that uneasiness is determined by the facts of the case. So I might be “uneasy” because I’m hungry.

[apehead]

It’s very relevant. Are there any other applications for categorization besides language? Do you consider “plant” a catergory of things, or a “thing itself”?

If one was at ease, i.e. completely free of uneasiness, would they cease to act?

[tunk]

I don’t know. I’m not read on this subject. I can only speak with some competence on Aristotle’s ethics.

[JackCuyler]

@Jackson LaRose

It’s very relevant. Are there any other applications for categorization besides language? Do you consider “plant” a catergory of things, or a “thing itself”?

If one was at ease, i.e. completely free of uneasiness, would they cease to act?

Most likely. And then he or she would get hungry, or thirsty, or get a cramp, or experience pins and needles, etc. Complete contentment is possible, but not for any extended period.

[gotlucky]

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. - Avicenna

[apehead]

@ tunk,

Than you admit to the potential error in your conclusions?

Since categorization and identity are the foundation of your whole argument, I would recommend you become a little more familiar with what you even mean by those terms, if you wish to keep asserting ultimate, universal “Truths”.

[quoteuser=“Buddha”]
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
[/quote]

[apehead]

[quoteuser=“JackCuyler”]
And then he or she would get hungry, or thirsty, or get a cramp, or experience pins and needles, etc. Complete contentment is possible, but not for any extended period.
[/quote]

That’s your opinion on the matter, but I disagree,

[quoteuser=“Buddha”]
The cause of all pain and suffering is ignorance.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“Buddha”]
But whoever overcomes
this wretched craving,
so difficult to overcome,
from him sorrows fall away
like water from a lotus leaf.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“Buddha”]
He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.
[/quote]

[apehead]

@gotlucky,

It’s a start…

[JackCuyler]

@Jackson LaRose

[quoteuser=“JackCuyler”]
And then he or she would get hungry, or thirsty, or get a cramp, or experience pins and needles, etc. Complete contentment is possible, but not for any extended period.

That’s your opinion on the matter, but I disagree,

[quoteuser=“Buddha”]
The cause of all pain and suffering is ignorance.
[/quote]

[/quote]

You asked, “If one was at ease, i.e. completely free of uneasiness, would they cease to act?” and not, “If one was… completely free of pain and suffering…”

There is quite a difference. I’m quite sure even the most enlightened get hungry and eat, and get thirsty and drink.

[tunk]

@tunk

Than you admit to the potential error in your conclusions?

Since categorization and identity are the foundation of your whole argument, I would recommend you become a little more familiar with what you even mean by those terms, if you wish to keep asserting ultimate, universal “Truths”.

I’m perfectly “familiar with what I mean by those terms”, thank you.

My argument rests, among other things, on the law of identity, ie. that everything that exists has a specific nature. Among those things are agents who are self-conscious and in possession of reason (meaning the ability to hypothesize and symbolize), that is, man. “Man” is a set which you and I fit into. It doesn’t matter what the Buddha says about it.

All the questions you brought up are irrelevant to my case. Maybe the metaphysical immutability of plants is a topic you’re interested in. I’m not interested in it, haven’t researched it, and don’t feel the need to comment on it.

@gotlucky

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. - Avicenna

I totally forgot about this quote. This is great. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Anenome]

I’d say coercion is wrong because it violates your self-ownership of your body and mind. You, as an owner of your self, have the right to control yourself and all actions. To be coerced is to in essence remove your right of self-ownership. Generally we are coerced in order to remove a value from us to be taken by another whom did not earn it, thus showing that coercion is generally a double-violation of property rights, of the right to your right of self-determination and choice, and your right to what you earned freely.

[apehead]

tunk,

What you mean when you use categorical terms is very important. I was simply using “plant” because it seems like an easy example. I could just as easily use “man” or “human” if it makes it seem more relevant to you.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
My argument rests, among other things, on the law of identity, ie. that everything that exists has a specific nature.
[/quote]

And as you’ve demonstated, you have no clue as to that “nature”, since you said yourself you don’t even know what a “plant” (or anything else for that matter) is! Wouldn’t the “Law of Identity” you so desperately lean on only help your argument if you were able to “identify” anything in the first place?

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
All the questions you brought up are irrelevant to my case. Maybe the metaphysical immutability of plants is a topic you’re interested in. I’m not interested in it, haven’t researched it, and don’t feel the need to comment on it.
[/quote]

That’s right, tighten those blinders a little more. Nevermind plants, it’s the metaphysical immutability of any of the terms you’ve been using thusfar that is staring you and your pet theories in the face.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
“Man” is a set which you and I fit into.
[/quote]

I decided we are both “ferbs” too. Big deal. You can’t even describe what “man” is, or what “men” are.

[apehead]

JackCuyler,

Perhaps how you are defining those terms,

[quoteuser=“Lama Yeshe”]
When Lord Buddha spoke about suffering, he wasn’t referring simply to superficial problems like illness and injury, but to the fact that the dissatisfied nature of the mind itself is suffering. No matter how much of something you get, it never satisfies your desire for better or more. This unceasing desire is suffering; its nature is emotional frustration.
[/quote]

[tunk]

@Jackson LaRose

you said yourself you don’t even know what a “plant” (or anything else for that matter) is!

I’m sure you would like to believe that. You’re doing battle with a caricature.

I’ve defined “man” several times. “Man” is a self-conscious actor in possession of reason (the ability to hypothesize and symbolize). You could call this “man”, you could call it “ferbs”. The point is, there are entities with these characteristics that fit in this set. I like to think I’m one of them. If you would like to heretofore declare yourself as lacking the ability to reason, feel free.

I also find it amusing how you continually refer to my “pet theories”, as if you are not defending any of your own “pet theories”. Skeptics are hypocrites.

[apehead]

I am certainly defending my pet theories, I’ve made no contention to the contrary. I’m not ashamed of that, because that is the best we are able to do. If you refuse to consider that position when I state it, maybe a Classical Greek may help persuade you.

[quoteuser=“Socrates”]
When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
[/quote]

Buddha’s not the only game in town, you know.

Oh wait, let me guess. Socrates is apparently condradicting himself, and is therefore a fool, or a troll. No wonder they killed him! Death by tunking!

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
“Man” is a self-conscious actor in possession of reason (the ability to hypothesize and symbolize).
[/quote]

So “man” as you describe it could hypothetically be a disembodied consciousness? It is only an “ego”, nothing more or less?

My representation of your argument is certainly not a caricture, unless you are now claiming that you “know” what a “thing” is, without being able to tell me.

[tunk]

@Jackson LaRose

Socrates is apparently condradicting himself, and is therefore a fool, or a troll. No wonder they killed him! Death by tunking!

You’re ridiculous. So I’m personally responsible for the death of Socrates? Guess what, fanatical and murderous “Imperial Way” Buddhists served in Hirohito’s army. Guess that makes you a fascist! Death by LaRose, LOL! I win!

Socrates was fighting the superstition of his day. He was informing Athenians that true wisdom is acknowledgement of one’s ignorance, with which I agree, at least in part. He wasn’t engaging in the kind of kindergarten pseudo-philosophy that says knowing anything is impossible, denying the applicability of reason. You’ll have to do more to convince me that were he alive today he would have been a Buddhist. I daresay he would have had a few choice words to say about the “leave your mind and your shoes at the gate” mentality.

@Jackson LaRose

So “man” as you describe it could hypothetically be a disembodied consciousness? It is only an “ego”, nothing more or less?

…no. Conscious action requires a physical body, blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, and other survival tools. A mere “ego”, whatever that would be, couldn’t act.

[Anenome]

You guys are having a very weird fight. Both Buddha and Socrates bow before modern rational thought. I’d put Rand above both fo them. And hers is an Aristotle based method. So, again Aristotle above both of them

You look at the philosophic roots of leftist/socialist/fascist thinking today and it comes directly back to father Socrates. The political desire for centralization, rule by the Philosopher King, use of coercion to mold society? It’s all right there in Plato’s Republic.

[apehead]

It’s funny how you think I’m a “Buddhist”, and that I’m implying Socrates would be a Buddhist!

Yes, that’s right, resort to the ad hominems to squirm out of the fact that Socrates is stating the EXACT SAME CONCEPT I’ve been. To put it succinctly,

“We are both full of shit.”

Remember that one? How is that any different?

And now you “somewhat agree” with this position all of a sudden???

You want the truth?

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Conscious action requires a physical body, blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, and other survival tools. A mere “ego”, whatever that would be, couldn’t act.
[/quote]

So what then, or rather, who is the actor?

[tunk]

@Jackson LaRose

Yes, that’s right, resort to the ad hominems to squirm out of the fact that Socrates is stating the EXACT SAME CONCEPT I’ve been.

Excuse me, but it was you who resorted to personal insults. (Calling it ad hominem is a misnomer, since that would imply what you said about me was actually true.) According to you, Socrates drank the hemlock because the Athenian authorities took a page from my book and found him guilty of epistemological self-contradiction. Now, this is a self-evidently stupid accusation and it should be withdrawn.

I agree that human knowledge is severely limited. It is foolish to pretend you know what you can’t know. But this is just the old virtue of modesty. (And I’m the one here, not you, who actually believes in virtue.) It’s a far jump from this to the claim that no knowledge is possible, which I would accuse of being just as arrogant as the claim to know for certain that Zeus will smite one’s enemies.

Some truths are self-confirming; that is, they are proven true by the attempt to deny them, or even by the very attempt to do anything. They are a very basic part of the reality we’re stuck with. By affirming them, I’m not claiming to know what I can’t know. Actually, I’m sticking to what I do know and starting ethical inquiry from there.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Conscious action requires a physical body, blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, and other survival tools. A mere “ego”, whatever that would be, couldn’t act.

So what then, or rather, who is the actor?
[/quote]

Man is the actor. “Man” is a conscious being with a physical body that is confronted with a reality of material scarcity that forces him to make choices in order to sustain his existence.

[apehead]

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Socrates drank the hemlock because the Athenian authorities took a page from my book and found him guilty of epistemological self-contradiction.
[/quote]

Ugh, no I didn’t. I’m saying they killed him because they got all pissed when he reminded them they were full of it.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I agree that human knowledge is severely limited.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
They are a very basic part of the reality we’re stuck with.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
By affirming them, I’m not claiming to know what I can’t know. Actually, I’m sticking to what I do know and starting ethical inquiry from there.
[/quote]

How do you know you know, considering how “severely limited” we agree our knowledge is? How do you know “we” share the same “reality” (whatever you mean by that)? You may be starting with what you (think you) “know”, but I’m saying it’s inadequate to be able to derive universal “truth” (the ethics you tout) from that “severely limited knowledge”.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
It’s a far jump from this to the claim that no knowledge is possible, which I would accuse of being just as arrogant as the claim to know for certain that Zeus will smite one’s enemies.
[/quote]

I agree. That’s why THIS WAS NEVER MY ARGUMENT!!!

I don’t care how much you keep insisting it was, it wasn’t.

We may know, but neither of us can know if we know, making the problem of who “knows” and who “doesn’t know” vis a vis ultimate reality, or truth, an unsolvable one (until one achieves omniscience, a state I believe is achievable). That’s all I’ve been saying this whole time, which is essentially Socrates’ argument, too.

Please, take a look back at some of the older posts. “Neither of us know what the truth is” is what I’ve been saying this whole time.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Man is the actor. “Man” is a conscious being with a physical body that is confronted with a reality of material scarcity that forces him to make choices in order to sustain his existence.
[/quote]

Could you define “physical body”?