Happy now? Abortion argument taken to "logical" conclusion.

[ttoney83]

Why not stay with "all life is sacred"? No doubt there has been some recognition that certain lives are sacred throughout history. Typically those appear to have been those who are members of my family, my friends, my clan, my tribe, my nation and etc. It is just as true to say that the lives of those in opposite camps have, just as often, not been sacred. It appears to me that the notion "all life is sacred" is not nearly as universal as the idea that "some lives are sacred". Neither would appear to be anything more than a human construct.

That SOME have failed to apprehend that all life is sacred does not negate the Principle that all life is sacred. I think BlackKnight has stated similar. And again I reiterate the Truth that the Truth is always the Truth but our understanding of it has always been something LESS than the Truth.

So, the NOTION that my life, the lives of my family, friends, clan, tribe, nation etc...are sacred, but not yours, your family's, clan etc... is a human construct....
The REALITY appears to be that ALL Life would appear to qualify for sacredness based upon a Universal Physical Principle as I've described it above, or similar.

[ttoney83]

IMHO Nietzsche was an influential thinker and a great writer. IMHO we was also dead wrong about most of what he proposed. The Ubermensch was adopted by the Third Reich as a goal for the Arian race, and a justification for the Final Solution. In all fairness to Friedrich, he was personally opposed to anti-semitism, but his ideal of a man becoming a superman by breaking the bonds of morality that keep him from been all he can become, was directly used by the Third Reich.

OMHP Nietzsche shows what happens when man considers morality as an obstacle to growth and advancement, and reject the notion of universal truth about good or evil.

The Psychopath would be the perfect Over Man by Nietzsche's definition.

[timcsaw]

Man's perception and understanding of everything, is measured against everything he already perceives and has learned during his existence... tainted or biased by his individual life experiences. EVERYTHING is measured against something else.

If you want to measure out a 1 foot length of thread, it will be too long if you measure it out using a 13 inch ruler, that you believe to be a standard 12 in ruler.

Each man is has his own "13 inch ruler".

[ttoney83]

This doesn't have to become a debate on the existence or non existence of God. This is why I mentioned earlier that our presuppositions are as important as our definitions.

As I understand it, Lepto approaches this from a purely materialistic perspective, fishface leans in that direction, and BlackKnight, me and some others approach this from a perspective not limited to the purely materialistic. Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. We know from the history of philosophy that these two starting points can lead to completely different conclusions regarding epistemology (Theory of Knowledge); this is, what is the nature of what can be known, what constitute true knowledge, what are human beings able to know, and how do we come to perceive and acquire such knowledge.

To a point, some of our differences in perspective flow from this. If only the material exists, then whatever can be known must be material in nature, of most be an artificially constructed concept. In this case, concepts and/or truths cannot have existence outside the observer, since these artificially constructed concepts are the result of a human mind. Without a human mind to observe and create, the concept doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if existence is not limited to the physical/material, then it is possible that just as the physical world has the guiding/descriptive "rules of nature", the non-physical world also has guiding/descriptive "universal rules". How those rules came to be is a topic for another thread.

My point is, these starting points have great influence on the level of certainty or relativism an individual more readily will identify himself with. We need to consider our starting points as an influential part of our respective perspectives and arguments.

I think your assessment is fair. I, for one, am trying to determine a "secular" foundation for Human Rights. Either perspective ultimately requires a justification for their morality/ethics founded on what we know of our physical reality. For me, solving the God or not God argument is irrelevant to this goal.
Not to toot my own horn, but I think my physical foundation for Human Rights loosly defined above is a decent start point. I would love to see similar attempts at a physical foundation for Human Rights from others so I could refine mine or drop mine. IMO, the jumping through philosophical hoops that others have presented before is somewhat counter productive.

[timcsaw]

That SOME have failed to apprehend that all life is sacred does not negate the Principle that all life is sacred. I think BlackKnight has stated similar. And again I reiterate the Truth that the Truth is always the Truth but our understanding of it has always been something LESS than the Truth.

So, the NOTION that my life, the lives of my family, friends, clan, tribe, nation etc...are sacred, but not yours, your family's, clan etc... is a human construct....
The REALITY appears to be that ALL Life would appear to qualify for sacredness based upon a Universal Physical Principle as I've described it above, or similar.

I would add, that "the NOTION that my life, the lives of my family, friends, clan, tribe, nation etc...are sacred, but not yours, your family's, clan etc..." is the result of man's comparisons and prioritization of one universal truth against other universal truths (truths measured with his own 13 inch ruler). IE: Helpless life, is seen as "more important", more "necessary to protect" than is "able life". Innocence is different than guilt.

[ttoney83]

I would add, that "the NOTION that my life, the lives of my family, friends, clan, tribe, nation etc...are sacred, but not yours, your family's, clan etc..." is the result of man's comparisons and prioritization of one universal truth against other universal truths (truths measured with his own 13 inch ruler). IE: Helpless life, is seen as "more important", more "necessary to protect" than is "able life". Innocence is different than guilt.

Taking the all life is sacred as the bench mark, I say again that what you describe as comparisons and prioritization of one "universal truth" against other universal truths, is simply what I stated earlier; the rationalizations of Man to justify his relative understanding of THE Truth vs. another's rationalizations of HIS relative understanding of THE Truth.

Stated differently; The Universe APPEARS to take the position that all life is special/precious. Man assigns relative values to Life.

Now, that is not to say that all life REMAINS special/precious from the "perspective" of the Universe but it would appear that even those life forms which have gone extinct were necessary developmental stages in the actualization of subsequent stages.

[timcsaw]

Taking the all life is sacred as the bench mark, I say again that what you describe as comparisons and prioritization of one "universal truth" against other universal truths, is simply what I stated earlier; the rationalizations of Man to justify his relative understanding of THE Truth vs. another's rationalizations of HIS relative understanding of THE Truth.

Stated differently; The Universe APPEARS to take the position that all life is special/precious. Man assigns relative values to Life.

Now, that is not to say that all life REMAINS special/precious from the "perspective" of the Universe but it would appear that even those life forms which have gone extinct were necessary developmental stages in the actualization of subsequent stages.

I agree... I must have missed that in an earlier post. I think that if we could know all of the universal truths, we would find some that oppose each other (at least from man's perspective).

[ttoney83]

I agree... I must have missed that in an earlier post. I think that if we could know all of the universal truths, we would find some that oppose each other (at least from man's perspective).

I think it is true that from Man's perspective, some things which would appear to be Universal Principle, might appear to contradict others. But I think that in reality, could we "see" more clearly, they would not actually contradict and that it is likely that from ONE overarching Universal Principle of "organization" springs all Reality which we might describe as Love, Creativity, Growth, Development etc...

[ttoney83]

By the way, did anyone see this article about the reexamination of data from the Viking Probes regarding life on Mars?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322897

The latest analysis by Miller et al., took a different approach based on the idea that biological processes, being more complex than known non-biological process, are associated with greater complexity.
Analysis for complexity yielded results showing correlations between terrestrial data sets and data sets from Viking soil samples. According to the scientists, the high degree of order and complexity their analysis detected is characteristic of biological processes.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz1rvpCYiYd

[timcsaw]

I think it is true that from Man's perspective, some things which would appear to be Universal Principle, might appear to contradict others. But I think that in reality, could we "see" more clearly, they would not actually contradict and that it is likely that from ONE overarching Universal Principle of "organization" springs all Reality which we might describe as Love, Creativity, Growth, Development etc...

Quite possibly... I base my suggestion of "contradictory universal principles" purely on the presumption that, like everything else, there are always equal and opposites... a "Yin and Yang" if you will.

[timcsaw]

By the way, did anyone see this article about the reexamination of data from the Viking Probes regarding life on Mars?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322897

Thanks... No I hadn't seen that but... I did see that a "Monolith", ala "2001 a Space Odyssey", has been discovered on Mars. How's HAL coming along?

[ttoney83]

Quite possibly... I base my suggestion of "contradictory universal principles" purely on the presumption that, like everything else, there are always equal and opposites... a "Yin and Yang" if you will.

I could see Yin and Yang being an aspect of a "developmental principle." Ever see the Movie Jacob's Ladder? Watch it to see what I mean. It's a pretty freaky movie but it speaks to Yin and Yang in the context of the apparent struggle between "Good" and "Evil." Without the Darkness, how would one know if they were in lightness or darkness?

[ttoney83]

Thanks... No I hadn't seen that but... I did see that a "Monolith", ala "2001 a Space Odyssey", has been discovered on Mars. How's HAL coming along?

Where'd THAT come from?

ETA: That's probably a navigational beacon for the Annunaki when Nibiru gets close enough for them to launch ships.

[Preacher Man]

I think your assessment is fair. I, for one, am trying to determine a "secular" foundation for Human Rights. Either perspective ultimately requires a justification for their morality/ethics founded on what we know of our physical reality. For me, solving the God or not God argument is irrelevant to this goal.
Not to toot my own horn, but I think my physical foundation for Human Rights loosly defined above is a decent start point. I would love to see similar attempts at a physical foundation for Human Rights from others so I could refine mine or drop mine. IMO, the jumping through philosophical hoops that others have presented before is somewhat counter productive.

Keep in mind that a secular foundation for human rights doesn't require a purely materialistic world view. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution prove this. It is difficult to assert these documents take a purely materialistic approach with lines like:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Secular is not the same a atheistic. A secular society can have members with several positions (Deists, Theists and Atheists). What changes is how they reach their conclusions. In the case of universal truth, it is possible to hold to the idea of universal truths without the need for God, but it is difficult to do so from a purely materialist perspective for the reasons I already mention. A physical argument is not the same as a materialistic argument. One denies the possibility of anything but the material, the other does not. This is an important distinction

You have done a very good job of presenting your argument, but your argument is not really one for universal truths (or universal physical principles, as you refer to them), but one for defining the nature of reality. In other words, reality is what it is regardless of what I think of it or where I find myself in the process of understanding that reality. If I understand your argument correctly, that is what makes "universal physical principles" possible, that which we can understand from reality is truth (real), regard of how well we understand it. It is a good starting point. Love and life certainty are realities, but how do you see these realities become or been characterized as universal principles? How would you go a bout characterizing liberty and justice as universal principles?

[BlackKnight86]

Why not stay with "all life is sacred"? No doubt there has been some recognition that certain lives are sacred throughout history. Typically those appear to have been those who are members of my family, my friends, my clan, my tribe, my nation and etc. It is just as true to say that the lives of those in opposite camps have, just as often, not been sacred. It appears to me that the notion "all life is sacred" is not nearly as universal as the idea that "some lives are sacred". Neither would appear to be anything more than a human construct.

OK, let's stay with that one. Keep in mind that you speculated that a universal truth could be "undone" by reality, yes? So please tell me where the "all life is sacred" has been undone by the reality of contradictory behavior. Tell me where in the world I can go and find the general belief that human life is not in some way special enough to warrant preserving.

My counter-hypothesis is that the only human constructs here are the excuses that people come up with to violate the truth (for example, that "the human fetus is not an actual child"....).

No trouble, just enjoying the learning experience.

As am I!

I readily admit my understanding is limited but I'm enjoying the conversation. When did you obtain complete knowledge?

From what that I have said do you conclude that I believe I have complete knowledge? I have knowledge to the point that I can demonstrate it; no more...and no less. I can tell you that I know the difference between an abstract concept and a concrete one; and I'm pretty "certain" that you do, as well.

It seemed like a fair speculation. You do come across as certain so I can easily imagine how someone who might challenge that certainty could be unsettling.

Really, Lepto? The old "I sense fear in you" approach? Don't you think that's a bit pedestrian?

For a challenge to be "unsettling", it must be an actual challenge. I am neither challenged nor impressed by ideas that I can easily refute. I'm even less than impressed when those ideas come from a man who threw a party in his head for the rest of his life, but never got around to inviting anyone. As of this writing, I myself have not gone nuts (yet); so I trust that you'll understand if I choose my own counsel over Mr Nietzsche's on any matter, without reservation or apology.

I still don't "get" what attracts you to his ideas; but as I said....if you like that sort of thing, knock yourself out.

Well, you know those pseudo-intellectuals will buy anything. I understand some of them even believe the universe and everything in it were created by a supernatural being.

[Shrug]...and some of them believe it just happened. Is there a point here to which we'll be getting sometime soon?

I knew you would find that notion appealing. Do you find that most truly important things in life are certain?

Are "most" "truly important" things in life "certain"?

Like I said before, I find that certainty is a continuum. There are some things about which we can be more certain than others. However, more important is the self-awareness that is necessary for an accurate assessment of certainty, without which certainty is irrelevant.

As you did not define "most" or "truly important", I cannot be sure what you mean. However, my response would probably be "no, not always", depending upon the individual. I think people act on impulse and without knowledge all the time; sometimes on what they consider to be "important things" and sometimes not...so obviously certainty is not a pre-requirement for action. Moreover, I think that people can very easily convince themselves of a level of certainty, both before and after the action, the accuracy of which is irrelevant. There is a mix of variables; and there is not always immediate feedback (in the form of "consequences"); so one doesn't always receive "lessons learned".

The ideal is, of course, that the individual has done due diligence, and has the self-awareness to be "certain" of that. That is the only ethical requirement; beyond that is not possible, given the limitations of human perception. And the adjudication of that is nothing more than a logical argument.

[Trent Rock]

Trent don't do PHILOSOPHY
I took one philosophy class
Figured out I was closely associate with hedonism
Then I was outta there!!!

I had one person tell me "I don't know how you read all those economics books with the big words"
Well, that's how I feel about philosophy...hehehehe
Words like "absolute truth"
It's all very confusing to me

What's a good starter/overview book on philsophy for the layman?

My friend gave me this book===>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching
She told me "you will like it"
I guess I will start there on my path to philosophical enlightenment
Trent The Taoist??

Sorry for the derailment
Back to discussions of fetuses and the beginning of life...

[ttoney83]

Trent don't do PHILOSOPHY
I took one philosophy class
Figured out I closely associate with hedonism
Then I was outta there!!!

I had one person tell me "I don't know how you read all those economics books with the big words"
Well, that's how I feel about philosophy...hehehehe
Words like "absolute truth"
It's all very confusing to me

What's a good starter/overview book on philsophy for the layman?

My friend gave me this book===>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching
She told me "you will like it"
I guess I will start there on my path to philosophical enlightenment
Trent The Taoist??

Sorry for the derailment
Back to discussions of fetuses and the beginning of life...

I think you're outta luck with a "good" starter/overview book on philosophy for the layman!

I took one philosophy class too. I think......It was my brief stint at Radford and I was drunk or hung over most of the time.
Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that reading all the musings of all that went before muddies the waters. It's all very confusing to me so, I decided I would come up with my own.

[BlackKnight86]

Trent don't do PHILOSOPHY
I took one philosophy class
Figured out I was closely associate with hedonism
Then I was outta there!!!

I had one person tell me "I don't know how you read all those economics books with the big words"
Well, that's how I feel about philosophy...hehehehe
Words like "absolute truth"
It's all very confusing to me

What's a good starter/overview book on philsophy for the layman?

My friend gave me this book===>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching
She told me "you will like it"
I guess I will start there on my path to philosophical enlightenment
Trent The Taoist??

Sorry for the derailment
Back to discussions of fetuses and the beginning of life...

Trent,

This is a good online starter:

http://www.galilean-library.org/site...ingphilosophy/

Short and to the point; gives definitions and basics that you'll need to be able to judge everything else that you read. After that, you should learn history of philosophy...a good undergrad textbook or general book like in here:

http://www.galilean-library.org/site...and-resources/

Should you choose to go further, you'll eventually end up reading the works of different historical philosophers - Plato, Mills, Descarte, etc.

[timcsaw]

Trent,

This is a good online starter:

http://www.galilean-library.org/site...ingphilosophy/

Short and to the point; gives definitions and basics that you'll need to be able to judge everything else that you read. After that, you should learn history of philosophy...a good undergrad textbook or general book like in here:

http://www.galilean-library.org/site...and-resources/

Should you choose to go further, you'll eventually end up reading the works of different historical philosophers - Plato, Mills, Descarte, etc.

If ya'll don't mind, I'll wait for "Philosophy For Dummies" (the movie of course... or maybe the Classic Comic version).

[lepto]

OK, let's stay with that one. Keep in mind that you speculated that a universal truth could be "undone" by reality, yes? So please tell me where the "all life is sacred" has been undone by the reality of contradictory behavior. Tell me where in the world I can go and find the general belief that human life is not in some way special enough to warrant preserving.

My counter-hypothesis is that the only human constructs here are the excuses that people come up with to violate the truth (for example, that "the human fetus is not an actual child"....).

Off the top of my head I would say Darfur, the Congo and Somalia would be places one could expect to find lots of behavior that contradicts the notion that "all life is sacred".

As am I!

I have to say we have a group of darned smart individuals here in this subforum. I learn something every time I tune in.

From what that I have said do you conclude that I believe I have complete knowledge? I have knowledge to the point that I can demonstrate it; no more...and no less. I can tell you that I know the difference between an abstract concept and a concrete one; and I'm pretty "certain" that you do, as well.

I really didn't think you had attained complete knowledge.

Really, Lepto? The old "I sense fear in you" approach? Don't you think that's a bit pedestrian?

For a challenge to be "unsettling", it must be an actual challenge. I am neither challenged nor impressed by ideas that I can easily refute. I'm even less than impressed when those ideas come from a man who threw a party in his head for the rest of his life, but never got around to inviting anyone. As of this writing, I myself have not gone nuts (yet); so I trust that you'll understand if I choose my own counsel over Mr Nietzsche's on any matter, without reservation or apology.

I had thought, from a comment you had made a few posts back, that you were almost inviting such speculation or I wouldn't have brought it up. FWIW, I don't think you are a bit afraid of FWN. *I do think you project a certainty about issues that, from merely reading your posts, might indicate a tendency to dislike uncertainty. As to choosing your own counsel, neither I nor, I would bet, FWN would have it any other way.

I still don't "get" what attracts you to his ideas; but as I said....if you like that sort of thing, knock yourself out.

Probably the Elvis in me...

[Shrug]...and some of them believe it just happened. Is there a point here to which we'll be getting sometime soon?

Just agreeing with you as to those pesky pseudo-intellectuals. They are aggravating to us real intellectuals aren't they?

Are "most" "truly important" things in life "certain"?

Like I said before, I find that certainty is a continuum. There are some things about which we can be more certain than others. However, more important is the self-awareness that is necessary for an accurate assessment of certainty, without which certainty is irrelevant.

As you did not define "most" or "truly important", I cannot be sure what you mean. However, my response would probably be "no, not always", depending upon the individual. I think people act on impulse and without knowledge all the time; sometimes on what they consider to be "important things" and sometimes not...so obviously certainty is not a pre-requirement for action. Moreover, I think that people can very easily convince themselves of a level of certainty, both before and after the action, the accuracy of which is irrelevant. There is a mix of variables; and there is not always immediate feedback (in the form of "consequences"); so one doesn't always receive "lessons learned".

The ideal is, of course, that the individual has done due diligence, and has the self-awareness to be "certain" of that. That is the only ethical requirement; beyond that is not possible, given the limitations of human perception. And the adjudication of that is nothing more than a logical argument.

Well said.