Donnadogsoth Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Yes, his telescope inventiveness was just part of his story: http://www.visionlaunch.com/johannes-kepler-inventions-and-accomplishments/ That's worth knowing, thank you. Would you also consider Beethoven to be an engineer, by virtue of his artistic discoveries which contribute to the change of social practice?
shirgall Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Would you also consider Beethoven to be an engineer, by virtue of his artistic discoveries which contribute to the change of social practice? Beethoven didn't invent new musical instruments but he created new music. I don't think it's really the same context as Kepler at all. Where are we going with this?
Donnadogsoth Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I'm interested in principles, whether artistic or scientific, as the fruit of creative mentation, which is the basis for morality. Being able to properly reference the creators of those principles is important in debate. Scientists, engineers, and artists are some of the names we can usefully give to those creators. Are there more sources of principles?
dsayers Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I don't accept your vox populi, for reasons already given. By pointing out that you cannot speak for a crowd, I'm speaking for a crowd? I'm interested in principles, whether artistic or scientific, as the fruit of creative mentation, which is the basis for morality. Being able to properly reference the creators of those principles is important in debate. Scientists, engineers, and artists are some of the names we can usefully give to those creators. Are there more sources of principles? In what way does constructing a telescope help us to identify performative contradictions? Can principles in fact be created, or just identified/crystallized?
Donnadogsoth Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 By pointing out that you cannot speak for a crowd, I'm speaking for a crowd? In what way does constructing a telescope help us to identify performative contradictions? Can principles in fact be created, or just identified/crystallized? 1. The basis for morality cannot be whatever the crowd feels like peer pressuring someone into doing. 2. Telescopes had something to do with discovering the principle of universal gravitation. I'm not sure how to address you other than that. What do you think?
dsayers Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 1. The basis for morality cannot be whatever the crowd feels like peer pressuring someone into doing. Correct. Yet when I made the case for objective reality, you said I was wrong, refused to show me how, citing "There are higher moral concerns than the individual's autonomy." In other words, crowd. Prior to this, you rejected that violence is the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence, citing public projects that violate property rights for the "common good." 2. Telescopes had something to do with discovering the principle of universal gravitation. What do you think? I know nothing of "universal gravitation." I think discovery falls under the purview of identification than creation. I think that discovering universal gravitation offers no assistance in identifying that property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously, which is the very contradiction the term immoral refers to.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Correct. Yet when I made the case for objective reality, you said I was wrong, refused to show me how, citing "There are higher moral concerns than the individual's autonomy." In other words, crowd. Prior to this, you rejected that violence is the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence, citing public projects that violate property rights for the "common good." I know nothing of "universal gravitation." I think discovery falls under the purview of identification than creation. I think that discovering universal gravitation offers no assistance in identifying that property rights cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously, which is the very contradiction the term immoral refers to. 1. The crowd as such, as a troop of baboon-like yahoos, no, that is not the higher moral concern. Mankind as made in the image of God, as being creative and therefore possessing his own reason to exist, that is the higher concern. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness advance that concern, not life, liberty, and property. There is a balance between the common good and the individual's autonomy. 2. If "immoral" refers to a contradiction in property rights, then peer pressuring a rape is moral?
shirgall Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 The invention of the telescope was an extension of the senses, which allowed for more observations to support a law of gravitation. I'm somewhat baffled by your counter that man is made in the image of God, and is akin to a troop of baboon-like yahoos, and is therefore creative as an justification for existence. I need some help making sense of your claim. Circling back, since deities in general are a crowd-sourced innovation to explain away natural occurrences your use of deities to support creativity goes right back to the point I criticized earlier, that your construction of "creative reason" is all about putting the divine into places where such a construction is unnecessary if not anathema. 1
dsayers Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...is a phrase that some dead guy wrote down one time. I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about objective reality. Where your life IS your property. I wish you had told me sooner that you were pretending unicorns exist. Since you continue to defend gang rape (as it is a common good), I just assumed "higher concerns" was the crowd, not the bogey man. There's no such thing as "common good." People value things differently. As long as they're not violating property rights (theft, assault, rape, and murder), then their preferences aren't binding upon others and therefore not for us to decide.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 The invention of the telescope was an extension of the senses, which allowed for more observations to support a law of gravitation. I'm somewhat baffled by your counter that man is made in the image of God, and is akin to a troop of baboon-like yahoos, and is therefore creative as an justification for existence. I need some help making sense of your claim. Circling back, since deities in general are a crowd-sourced innovation to explain away natural occurrences your use of deities to support creativity goes right back to the point I criticized earlier, that your construction of "creative reason" is all about putting the divine into places where such a construction is unnecessary if not anathema. Outside of a development of his creative powers, man is akin to the baboons. With creativity, namely science (physical economy) and art (social practice), man can increase his power over nature, power to survive in general. In this sense, we are in the image of a God that is the creative source of the universe. That defines sacred practice, science and art, whatever the specific nomenclature. ...is a phrase that some dead guy wrote down one time. I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about objective reality. Where your life IS your property. I wish you had told me sooner that you were pretending unicorns exist. Since you continue to defend gang rape (as it is a common good), I just assumed "higher concerns" was the crowd, not the bogey man. There's no such thing as "common good." People value things differently. As long as they're not violating property rights (theft, assault, rape, and murder), then their preferences aren't binding upon others and therefore not for us to decide. On the contrary, the discovery of a new principle of nature benefits everyone, it's an act acting upon the entire human species as a single gestalt. The specific technological or artistic applications may "radiate" from individual to individual over time, but the essential efficient power over nature is increased commonly by that discovery, and so the self-interest every individual has in increasing that power is served. Your sentiments on rape, peer pressure, personal property, and your lies about me put you on the level of that consummate capitalist, the pimp.
neeeel Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about objective reality. Where your life IS your property. Im not sure you can claim that property rights exist in objective reality, given that they are a concept, and dont exist in the same way that USA doesnt exist.
dsayers Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Im not sure you can claim that property rights exist in objective reality, given that they are a concept, and dont exist in the same way that USA doesnt exist. What you quoted doesn't claim they exist. I understand the distinction you are making and if I've ever said property rights exist, then you are correct that "property rights is a valid concept" would be more precise and accurate. People are responsible for their actions where they are voluntary and understood is true independent of individual consciousness. Hence objective morality.
shirgall Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Outside of a development of his creative powers, man is akin to the baboons. With creativity, namely science (physical economy) and art (social practice), man can increase his power over nature, power to survive in general. In this sense, we are in the image of a God that is the creative source of the universe. That defines sacred practice, science and art, whatever the specific nomenclature. You are drawing a distinction without a difference. Man is part of nature. Man is made in the image of the divine. Man is akin to baboons. Man is special because he is creative. This sounds like Man is anything you need Him to be to support your argument. Pretty adaptable, but I think you broke it. For example, you cite "sacred" practices, but "sacred" should be undefilable, but Man defiles his own creations, including his religious ones, all the time.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 You are drawing a distinction without a difference. Man is part of nature. Man is made in the image of the divine. Man is akin to baboons. Man is special because he is creative. This sounds like Man is anything you need Him to be to support your argument. Pretty adaptable, but I think you broke it. For example, you cite "sacred" practices, but "sacred" should be undefilable, but Man defiles his own creations, including his religious ones, all the time. The fact that a church can be, or was, desecrated invalidates its sacredness? That's like saying that because strokes can induce aphasia reading isn't possible. Other than that, I have no remedy to such a failure to understand my meaning.
shirgall Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 The fact that a church can be, or was, desecrated invalidates its sacredness? That's like saying that because strokes can induce aphasia reading isn't possible. Man--in the image of God--desecrates what is supposed to be sacred, often as an act of creativity, which kinda invalidates the idea of anything being sacred and creativity being divine.
neeeel Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 What you quoted doesn't claim they exist. I understand the distinction you are making and if I've ever said property rights exist, then you are correct that "property rights is a valid concept" would be more precise and accurate. People are responsible for their actions where they are voluntary and understood is true independent of individual consciousness. Hence objective morality. Im not sure what you mean. You said "I'm talking about objective reality. Where your life IS your property. " unless I have misunderstood, this means that , in objective reality , there is such a thing as property, and life is the property of you.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Man--in the image of God--desecrates what is supposed to be sacred, often as an act of creativity, which kinda invalidates the idea of anything being sacred and creativity being divine. I think you're referencing what a friend of mine calls "demonic creativity"--e.g. new torture implements or new ways to make society uglier than before. I'm referring to the creative ideal of classical art and science: things that increase our power over nature, including the beautiful which enhances our lives, rather than things that make life ghastly.
shirgall Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 I think you're referencing what a friend of mine calls "demonic creativity"--e.g. new torture implements or new ways to make society uglier than before. I'm referring to the creative ideal of classical art and science: things that increase our power over nature, including the beautiful which enhances our lives, rather than things that make life ghastly. Classical engineering, however, it creative destruction. The horse and buggy business was destroyed by automobiles. The telegram business was destroyed by email. The feudalism business was destroyed by a strong merchant class and improved farming techniques. These may have been bad for some people, but they were not demonic.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Classical engineering, however, it creative destruction. The horse and buggy business was destroyed by automobiles. The telegram business was destroyed by email. The feudalism business was destroyed by a strong merchant class and improved farming techniques. These may have been bad for some people, but they were not demonic. I agree. Even in general, the creation of a new, more correct scientific worldview destroys the previous ramified worldview.
labmath2 Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 I read dsayers in this thread and i feel unease. Let us posit something that is so untrue i am ashamed to posit it, but bear with me for the moment. Research comes out tomorrow that societes with democratic governments do better on every measure of well being than any other alternatives, including no goverment. You check the data and it works out empirically. Would you reject such data because it is incompatible with your principle? Now that i managed to get that down without vomiting, i can go back to being rational.
Recommended Posts