Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (70716)	7/12/2003 4:53:45 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"So, the description of her well being is left open for improvement/worsening in the long run)." We have never disagreed on the ability of people to improve or worsen. But we might very well disagree on whether any event or consequence in particular is for better or for worse. Our moral judgments and principles would reflect our own particular biases, experiences, and subjective points of views. "There is always the possibility that in the wholeness of time, the accounting may be different than in the immediate sense or even in the long term or general sense" This is what is meant by "relative". Our bodies and our minds change on a continuous basis. Certainly our opinions and our assessments change as well! "it suits my side of the argument to suggest that there is a whole person that transcends time, space, and specific experiences" I know about whole people. What I remain unaware of is that there could be any other kind. As to transcending time and space, I don't know on what basis you make such an axiomatic claim. I can tell you that I have never met such a one...nor (other than this comment from you) have I ever encountered such a claim from another human before. I don't know what you mean by (transcending) "specific experiences." Do you mean getting beyond them psychologically? Or do you mean erasing the information which preserves the record of events? "Likewise, “self-interest” may be used to describe something that is beneficial to one in the moment vs over the wholeness of time." Self interest is the subjective and particular bias of desire which is characteristic of personal experience. It certainly changes in details throughout time...so long as life and consciousness exist. It just as surely cannot exist once the self has expired and been reduced to natural elements of soil, etc. One could argue that someone (say) in a coma still displayed self interest at some biological level. After all, there is still an entity, there is still a discreet "self". But I doubt that even you would argue that in the absence of a discreet organism when there is no longer a "self" but merely physical elements from the periodic table...that "self" interest manifests. I supppose one could always re-define "self" as any collection of atoms that exist. Thus, a screw would be "self", a nut would be a "self", the screw and the nut and half the tomato and an old towel would be a "self"...and so forth. But I wonder if anything is gained by depriving words of their meaning or by stating conclusions as axioms? "Actually it is in keeping with the original premise, so I must continue such assertions. We are talking about an absolute moral principle in which the individual “self” and “others in part or as a whole” are implicated." AGAIN..."A concern for ones own advantage or well being demonstrates a clear bias and is obviously subjective. Asserting that it is not will not further your argument.” You may NOT rationally pretend that subjectivity and objectivity are one and the same. If morality is based on physical laws, like the laws of motion, and if it exists irrerspective of the opinions of people, then it is Objective and Absolute. If it derives from the opinions of people then it is NOT Absolute. It may indeed be sensible and logically constructed...but it is based on subjectivity and fallibility. Your implication that humans are (perhaps) ultimately beyond space and time, Deities, or whatever...are not argumentative--they are blanket assertions of the most extraordinary and most unjustified kind. If you wish to assert that our diverse and contradictory opinions are Absolute--and based on the fact that WE are Absolute...then please state it openly and divulge your evidence. If you believe our moral opinions are based on an idea pattern established in the ether of "ideas" by an Absolute Entity (or existing without cause) then please state THAT. Because really, Jewels: I am not averse to discussing extreme possibilities as to where opinions come from. But if there is to be dancing I prefer that there be music. "That does not mean that the idea can’t exist without language" This depends on how one defines both "idea" and "language". Additionally, proving that a giraffe can exist without your awareness really has nothing to do with the proposition that moral opinions exist apart from human awareness and interest. The giraffe is not being held forth as a mysterious reservoir of an extrahuman set of Absolute moral opinions. "If you approach the game in a healthy manner with regard for your own well being and the well being of your opponent (me), then your outlook would be to expose the weaknesses in my strategy" A healthy manner in whose opinion?? Why should I value your well being equivalent to mine? Even if I did, it would only reflect my subjective value. And how would such nonsense work in practice. We both love a girl but she loves me and not you. Am I to encourage her to go to you....hurting her AND me?? Am I to encourage her to marry me...hurting You?? If people did not have self interest and if they did not regard and value one another differently then we would not have individualized love and devotion and fidelity. We have these things because we are NOT somebody else...we are ourselves.

To: one_less who wrote (70716)	7/14/2003 10:49:27 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Here's the NEW BIBLE of your leaders....very scary Latest from Sen Ron Paul: ...There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed. Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiaveli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued. In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.” If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it. In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.” Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come... It is very worthwhile (and scary) to read through the entire text: thelibertycommittee.org .CC