18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'd say sheep are better than any other creatures at being sheep.
Halitose, I can't find your comment about sheep. Maybe it was in another thread. Anyhow--you asked whether someone wasn't more intelligent than a sheep. I'd say sheep are better than any other creatures at being sheep. I doubt you'd make a very successful sheep, for example. But people don't eat sheep because they're more intelligent than them; they ea ...[text shortened]... t another person was more intelligent than you, would you regard them as a superior being?
Aren't you assuming that there is some purpose in sheep existing? Their existence is the product of sheer chance, remember.
Why does human intelligence elevate the species above other animals? If you were convinced that another person was more intelligent than you, would you regard them as a superior being?
It doesn't. My belief is that humans are the stewards of the earth with the (God-given) responsibility of caring for it (and each other). Not so with LJ's view: the superiority and inferiority of a being depends on their given capabilities -- the criteria having been decided upon by the elite. I further believe that all humans are equal -- we each have our individual abilities which cannot be declared superior to the other. All humans have the God-given right to life and pursuit of happiness.
18 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWhether sheep have a purpose or not does not concern me. The fact is that they excel at being sheep.
[b]I'd say sheep are better than any other creatures at being sheep.
Aren't you assuming that there is some purpose in sheep existing? Their existence is the product of sheer chance, remember.[/b]
Edit: Sheep are masterly practitioners of the Tao of Sheep.
18 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseOK. Philosophical Taoism is said to be the best example of materialist pantheism going. Although "pantheism" without "theos" seems counter-intuitive, it is possible: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
I gave my evidence (I've got more). Kindly disprove or give evidence in support of your counter-assertion.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, but to excel at something it must me possible to do it correctly or incorrectly.
Whether sheep have a purpose or not does not concern me. The fact is that they excel at being sheep.
Edit: Sheep are masterly practitioners of the Tao of Sheep.
A sheep is a sheep, a non-sheep is not a sheep. No entity can excel at it, they either are, or are not.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by PalynkaMaybe you can get funding to have a sheep raised by a family of pigs and then try to introduce the sheep back into the general sheep population.
Yes, but to excel at something it must me possible to do it correctly or incorrectly.
A sheep is a sheep, a non-sheep is not a sheep. No entity can excel at it, they either are, or are not.
How do you measure a sheep's intelligence? Do you give it sheep-appropriate tests?
18 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause we are able to see the consequences of our actions at a much larger scale. I know this is an idea that can easily be misrepresented into speciesism, but the idea that superiority must translate into domination is a false one.
Why does human intelligence elevate the species above other animals? If you were convinced that another person was more intelligent than you, would you regard them as a superior being?
This elevation should entail both rights and duties. The most interesting point is that any consideration that we should care about animal rights necessarily implicitly elevates our species above the others.
If you were convinced that another person was more intelligent than you, would you regard them as a superior being?
This is a false dilemma. We'd both be able to consciously consider the responsibilities of our species that arise from the possibility of complete domination over the animal kingdom.
The existence of this possibility being available to us, allied with the intelligence to consider the consequences of such domination is what marks the difference. Not intelligence levels, per se.
Edit -
How do you measure a sheep's intelligence? Do you give it sheep-appropriate tests?
In my view, there's no need to measure its intelligence.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Matt. 5:3-11
What is the meaning of this passage in Matt 5:
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Why does Christ consider these people to be 'blessed' ?
Does it mean that the 'poor in spirit', the meek and those that mourn will be saved ? If not, how is this to be interpreted?
(Note: Remember that words and phrases from biblical times aren't used anymore. Example: Fear god. Meaning: Love and obey him.)
1. "Blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me..."
(Humility: recognise spiritual lack; go to the Lord for his help; pray and search the scriptures)
2. "Blessed are all that mourn..."
(Experience godly sorrow for sins, sufficient to move us to repentance)
3. "Blessed are the meek..."
(To be teachable, gentle, kind, patient, tolerant; not proud, or conceited; involves self control; it is not a weak, but a heroic quality; willing to submit to the will of God.)
4. "Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness..."
(To know and to do the will of the Lord; develop an insatible appetite for knowledge pertaining to our salvation.)
5. "Blessed are the merciful..."
(Show forgiveness and mercy, be sensitive to others, extending kindness, compassion, and service to others.)
6. "Blessed are the pure in heart..."
(Seek to be like God; have honorable motives and pure thoughts and hearts; forsake worldly influences)
7. "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
(Love all, including enemies; reconcile differences and misunderstandings; avoid anger; spread the gospel.)
8. "Blessed are all they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake..."
(Withstand social and peer group pressures and critism.)
19 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou have already stated that you find Christianity "rationally compelling".
You have already stated that you find Christianity "rationally compelling". So, by the characterization of 'hope' that Pawnokeyhole provided, on what grounds can you say that your worldview is hopeful? Likewise, if the "revelation" you speak of is compelling, then that precludes your hoping about whatever it is that was revealed to you, doesn't it? Can ...[text shortened]... how would I even go about doing that without resorting to incoherency?
Yes, as opposed to a "irrefutably proven" system.
So, by the characterization of 'hope' that Pawnokeyhole provided, on what grounds can you say that your worldview is hopeful?
I have good reason to believe that my view is correct. The hope stems from reasonable evidence.
Likewise, if the "revelation" you speak of is compelling, then that precludes your hoping about whatever it is that was revealed to you, doesn't it? Can you have it both ways? Can you find your worldview simultaneously compelling and hopeful?
Hmmm... I guess being rationally compelled in a hopeful direction is a logical possibility here. 😛
Please don't feed the false generalization that all atheists/absurdists are hedonists.
Heh. I threw in hedonism since it is one of the chief forms of "meaning" in rural Africa.
I would do what many caring individuals would do: let him know that there are many people who care about him and his welfare, and remind him that there are many things in this life that can bring him joy and happiness. I would also probably share my own experiences for overcoming mental struggles and cultivating peace of mind.
Fair enough.
The meaning in life, for Camus, lies in the passionate confrontation with an unreasonable world that gives rise and continued life to the absurd.
Could you explain how meaning is compatible with the absurd -- two seemingly contradictory terms?
His prescription is that Sisyphus finds happiness in that confrontation – a happiness that arises in present awareness, not in hope.
So happiness arises from confrontation, not contentment?
If you have some argument designed to show that absurdism precludes an objective foundation for morals, then please provide it. I know of no such argument.
My problem is not in its preclusion, but in its lack of provision. I could also allude to the naturalistic fallacy in formulating an "aught" from what "is" -- the "is" being all the absurdist has IMO.
Yes, but my point was that to say that I would be better off in a state of death is contradictory: the use of "I" assumes a conscious self from which a normative perspective exists, and the "state of death" assumes the lack of such a conscious perspective. So if I wanted to convince myself that I should commit suicide, how would I even go about doing that without resorting to incoherency?
Good point.