[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Much like the divine right of kings, so called natural rights are a social construction. Both are examples of reification informed by political and material factors.[/quote]
According to the essay that’s called ‘positive legalism’. [/quote]
It would be interesting for someone to attempt to demonstrate the converse.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Much like the divine right of kings, so called natural rights are a social construction. Both are examples of reification informed by political and material factors.[/quote]
According to the essay that’s called ‘positive legalism’. [/quote]
It would be interesting for someone to attempt to demonstrate the converse.[/quote]
It’s not necessary to demonstrate that natural rights exist. It suffices to demonstrate the consequences of legislating or governing in a manner that assumes they don’t.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Much like the divine right of kings, so called natural rights are a social construction. Both are examples of reification informed by political and material factors.[/quote]
According to the essay that’s called ‘positive legalism’. [/quote]
It would be interesting for someone to attempt to demonstrate the converse.[/quote]
Well, I would think the Great American Experiment is the embodiment of the principles balancing man’s natural right with law. It’s far from perfect, I get that. Never in a time in history that since the time of the Constitution of these States United has there been a better balance between natural right and law. I am not just talking the U.S. The majority of the western world has some form of democratic republic where the rights of man are considered highly. Again, far from perfect, but much higher then ever before save for the great but easily corruptible Greek and Roman experiments of yore.
We’re living the dream. We should always take a moment to appreciate it.
As for the opposite, a negative legalism. The period between the revolution and well into Washington’s first term there was a glimpse of a civilized society living more or less in harmony where the power of law very weak. People managed to live cooperatively at the time but I don’t think it could have lasted very long. It takes one bad apple to screw it up. If men were angles we wouldn’t need government.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Much like the divine right of kings, so called natural rights are a social construction. Both are examples of reification informed by political and material factors.[/quote]
According to the essay that’s called ‘positive legalism’. [/quote]
It would be interesting for someone to attempt to demonstrate the converse.[/quote]
It’s not necessary to demonstrate that natural rights exist. It suffices to demonstrate the consequences of legislating or governing in a manner that assumes they don’t.[/quote]
History is rife with examples. In fact, it’s most of history.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[Natural rights] came from the same place gravity did, how’s that?
[/quote]
I can drop my pen and evidence of gravity as the pen falls to the ground. The questions is this: What such kind of evidence exists for a natural right?[/quote]
Lets say you drop a grenade on my sisters head
I say she has been wronged
To me this brings up two points:
You might disagree that she has been wronged. Or that even such a thing could happen
So what? What does this have to do with rights? I’m leaving this alone - seems to me that it should just be a matter of sifting through to find the right terminology, and that a right and a wrong are indicative of each other
So now if we’re on the same page here I am looking for evidence that points to an individual having been wronged. This might seem to require for us to be speaking from a shared moral code, which I think is how this whole discussion started in the first place.
However, I noticed that you have been asking for evidence someone could point to rather than a rigid logical proof. Asking for evidence isn’t asking for much
Evidence in the above example might lie in my natural responses. Plotting revenge or seeking some form of retribution. It is natural that my knowledge of what happened to my sister would begin to pull me towards seeking revenge. It would require a certain set of other forces to prevent me from doing that (like a dropped pen with gravity)
That vengeance is a natural thing also indicates that perceptions of wrongs is also natural, as is perceptions of rights
Natural perceptions of rights vs. those rights actually [i]being[/i] natural
A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind
You want physical evidence for a thing that cannot be physically touched? Then of course, the ‘standard’ of what counts as “evidence” is the key
Genes are driven to survive and replicate. They will drive an organism to achieve this end - sometimes at the expense of the organism. That DOES NOT mean anything is a “right”. The organism is driven to survive and replicate AND ENSURE that threats to it’s survival and replication are neutralized. This does not a “moral” argument make. It’s just evolution… Nothing more, nothing less. Everything beyond that are CHOICES, not RIGHTS.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well then I would still have to resort to saying that the mechanism by which something is obtained does not preclude the object.
[/quote]
Right, I understand the claim. Mathematics exist and do not supervene on the physical. The rest of your post is a series of re-statements of this claim.
What is missing is evidence. On what evidence do you affirm that mathematics exist–actually exist–as a set platonic, non-physical ideals? On what evidence do you claim to know that it is not the case that mathematics supervene on the physical “material”–I use the term widely here–of the brain and its physical perception of the physical world it inhabits?
Note that analogy will not substantiate your claims. You drew an analogy involving continents. But it does not logically follow from “human conception of continents <---- physical continents, which exist outside the mind” that “human conception of mathematics <---- *non-physical mathematics, which exist outside the mind.” There is no necessary logical entailment in the analogy (as there just about never is: Analogy makes for poor philosophy).
*Note that the analogy doesn’t even work internally, because continents are physical entities whereas mathematics, in your view, are not.
Edited[/quote]
Well Kant posed this same problem the unlovable son of a bitch he was, he did have good points.
But first, I would highly contend that analogy makes poor philosophy. I have read my share of philosophy books and treatises and whatever other agonizing thing a dead guy can write. I cannot honestly think of one at the moment that did not use analogies. Maybe Aristotle? Jesus used them exclusively to make points.
Analogies not only make great philosophy, they make the subject matter tolerable. I may have made a bad analogy, but it doesn’t make all analogies bad.
Anyhow, the problem with the metaphysical is that no matter how we try, we have no choice but to interact by means of the physical.
There are many ways I think to attack it.
The many worlds hypothesis is one. The idea that a proposition would be true whether or not there where any human minds to to know it. In a possible world with no physical beings with minds exist, would a proposition still be true? Do the objects of the proposition still exist?
So with math, what are numbers? What are functions? ← not rhetorical.
Another approach is to take a look at the physical itself. In as much as Kant was right, so was Berkeley who proposed nothing physical exists, they are all objects of a mind. Berkeley has a university named after him, if Kant does I don’t know it. So who was right?
In as much as we cannot extrude our physicality from the examination of metaphysical objects as Kant says. We cannot prove the physical actually exists as Berkeley says.
As for the analogy, the point was objects exist whether we know it or not. One may not know anything about continents and indeed there was a time where that was true, yet they exist. Math also exists whether we know it or not. If nobody knew it, would it still exist? I believe the answer has to be yes. After all math wasn’t made, it was discovered. Nobody is credited with creating math, people are credited with discovering it. I don’t think it a matter of semantics.
[/quote]
Jesus wasn’t a philosopher in the relevant sense. He said philosophical things, but he didn’t do formal philosophizing.
Anyway, the aphorism is that all analogies limp. Analogy can be useful in explaining something that isn’t clear, but it is generally a weak form of argumentation. This is because argument from analogy is not good at demonstrating logical necessity.
Anyway, I still don’t see a single reason to believe that mathematics exist and do not supervene on the physical. The question of whether or not mathematics were discovered or invented–surely you know that this is a question of much contemporary debate. If you believe that it is certain that the debate is settled in your favor, why do you believe it? By this I mean: On what specific evidence do you affirm that mathematics exist as some sort of platonic non-physical ideal?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Natural perceptions of rights vs. those rights actually [i]being[/i] natural
[/quote]
You spent an entire post evidencing the former. I don’t need to be shown that people perceive themselves to have rights. The existence of this thread is sufficient evidence of that claim.
What is being discussed is the latter half of your formulation–the half on which you were silent.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You want physical evidence for a thing that cannot be physically touched? Then of course, the ‘standard’ of what counts as “evidence” is the key
[/quote]
I don’t think I ever said physical evidence, though I don’t know what the hell non-physical evidence would be.
What I want is for conversations to stop going like this:
And for them to start going like this:
Note that “claim-maker” is here a composite character–I’m not calling anyone out specifically, and, in fact, the literal claim-maker is at least engaging on the substance.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Much like the divine right of kings, so called natural rights are a social construction. Both are examples of reification informed by political and material factors.[/quote]
According to the essay that’s called ‘positive legalism’. [/quote]
It would be interesting for someone to attempt to demonstrate the converse.[/quote]
It’s not necessary to demonstrate that natural rights exist. It suffices to demonstrate the consequences of legislating or governing in a manner that assumes they don’t.[/quote]
Si droits n’existent pas, il faudrait les inventer.
Probably got that wrong.
That’s pretty close :
Si les droits n’existaient pas, il faudrait les inventer.
But indeed, the fact is that we can’t invent them arbitrarily.
So, even if there is no “natural right”, the “invention of right” still has some structural rules.
This is enough to disprove a strictly positivist position.
And it makes the idea of “natural rights” pretty close to the truth in practice, if not exactly/technically/epistemologically true,
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Natural perceptions of rights vs. those rights actually [i]being[/i] natural
[/quote]
You spent an entire post evidencing the former. I don’t need to be shown that people perceive themselves to have rights. The existence of this thread is sufficient evidence of that claim.
[/quote]
As an attribute of being a “normal” human. This happens on a subconscious level, like a reflex
We’ve all felt wronged. This is like questioning the existence of light or sound. You do realize this can be done depending on how strict one were to be with what they allowed as evidence?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
As an attribute of being a “normal” human
We’ve all felt wronged. This is like questioning the existence of light or sound.
[/quote]
No it’s not at all.
Light and sound can be quantifiably measured.
Light and sound have a physical existence - photons(energy/matter) and the displacement of matter(gas/water etc) by pressure.
[quote]
You do realize this can be done depending on how strict one were to be with what they allowed as evidence?[/quote]
And “rights” cannot be shown to exist.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
As an attribute of being a “normal” human
We’ve all felt wronged. This is like questioning the existence of light or sound.
[/quote]
No it’s not at all.
Light and sound can be quantifiably measured.
Light and sound have a physical existence - photons(energy/matter) and the displacement of matter(gas/water etc) by pressure.
Not at all?
Methinx you lie
We do now have various ways of quantifying various properties of light and sound. We didn’t always
Photons? You ever seen a photon? You ever felt the physical pain of a photon, when one was dropped on your sisters head? I believe far more so in the phenomena of humans claiming to have been wronged
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Not at all?
Methinx you lie
We do now have various ways of quantifying various properties of light and sound. We didn’t always
Photons? You ever seen a photon? You ever felt the physical pain of a photon, when one was dropped on your sisters head? I believe far more so in the phenomena of humans claiming to have been wronged [/quote]
O_o
One is, under certain conditions that we define, said to be objective truth as far as we can tell.
The other is almost entirely subjective. As in, different people will have different definitions of what are “rights”.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Not at all?
[/quote]
If you think they can be shown to exist then do so by all means.
What possible motive could I have for lying? Given that I believe natural rights do exist I have a strong motive for wanting to prove they do.
Whether we always did is neither here nor there.
It’s not necessary to be able to see an individual photon to demonstrate the existence of light.
[quote]
I believe far more so in the phenomena of humans claiming to have been wronged [/quote]
I believe in the phenomena of people claiming to be wronged too. I even believe in natural rights. What I don’t believe is that the existence of natural rights can be proved.
[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s pretty close :
Si les droits n’existaient pas, il faudrait les inventer.
But indeed, the fact is that we can’t invent them arbitrarily.
So, even if there is no “natural right”, the “invention of right” still has some structural rules.
This is enough to disprove a strictly positivist position.
And it makes the idea of “natural rights” pretty close to the truth in practice, if not exactly/technically/epistemologically true,[/quote]
In practice, without any external force guiding them, people would believe their rights are infinite, they are “allowed” (they would never think of using this term) to do whatever they want, nothing would ever restrict their actions except what is physically impossible.
Then as people interact and form cooperative relationships, conflicts arise. Person A takes an apple from person B. Person B feels “wronged” but doesn’t know what it means, but he still acts on it. Person B takes the apple back from Person A and Person A feels wronged. Now both people feel “wronged” but both have done the same wrong thing. At this point they may come to an agreement : don’t take my apple and i won’t take yours, or they might even form the general rule :no one can take anothers apples etc. realistically this situation would escalate in a revenge cycle until both people are trying to kill each other, and this would repeat over and over until people collectivly agreed not to steal
But the point is, everything seems to be a natural right at first, the only thing that is ever contructed is a restriction of rights
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I believe in the phenomena of people claiming to be wronged too. I even believe in natural rights. What I don’t believe is that the existence of natural rights can be proved.
[/quote]
Nothing can be proved
You accept a piece of evidence, or not
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Not at all?
Methinx you lie
We do now have various ways of quantifying various properties of light and sound. We didn’t always
Photons? You ever seen a photon? You ever felt the physical pain of a photon, when one was dropped on your sisters head? I believe far more so in the phenomena of humans claiming to have been wronged [/quote]
O_o
One is, under certain conditions that we define, said to be objective truth as far as we can tell.
The other is almost entirely subjective. As in, different people will have different definitions of what are “rights”.[/quote]
Photons dude?
Someone questions the existence of light and you bring up photons?
No
We’re not even getting into where different rights begin and end, or how to divide them up, etc. This is just about the existence of them.
Sounds subjective to me. You couldn’t prove nothing if one were to be intentionally difficult about it
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I believe in the phenomena of people claiming to be wronged too. I even believe in natural rights. What I don’t believe is that the existence of natural rights can be proved.
[/quote]
Nothing can be proved
You accept a piece of evidence, or not[/quote]
